wooQ

Christian "music videos" by Igniter Media

2006-11-23T01:02:00.000+08:00

I thought the following Christian "music videos" by Igniter Media are quite moving and amazingly well done. These videos are created by the same organization that produced the meChurch video.

Are You Amazed?

Song: Your Grace Still Amazes Me by Phillips, Craig And Dean

My faithful Father, enduring Friend
Your tender mercy’s like a river with no end
It overwhelms me, covers my sin
Each time I come into Your presence
I stand in wonder once again

CHORUS:
Your grace still amazes me
Your love is still a mystery
Each day I fall on my knees
Your grace still amazes me
‘Cause Your grace still amazes me

Oh, patient Saviour, You make me whole
You are the Author and the Healer of my soul
What can I give You, Lord, what can I say
I know there’s no way to repay You
Only to offer You my praise

It’s deeper, it’s wider
It’s stronger, it’s higher
It’s deeper, it’s wider
It’s stronger, it’s higher
than anything my eyes can see

(P.S. I am well aware that Phillips, Craig And Dean are Oneness Pentecostals.)

I Believe

Song: I Believe by Wes King.

I believe
In six days and a rest
God is good
I do confess
I believe
In Adam and Eve
In a tree and a garden
In a snake and a thief

CHORUS:
I believe, I believe
I believe in the Word of God
I believe, I believe
'Cause He made me believe

I believe Noah
Built an ark of wood
120 years
No one understood
I believe Elijah never died
Called fire from heaven
On a mountainside

CHORUS

It's been passed down through ages of time
Written by hands of men
Inspired by the Lord
His Word will remain to the end
I believe Isaiah
Was a prophet of old
The Lamb was slain
Just as he foretold
I believe Jesus
Was the Word made man
And He died for my sins
And He rose again

Never Been Unloved

Song: Never Been Unloved by Michael W. Smith

I have been unfaithful
I have been unworthy
I have been unrighteous
And I have been unmerciful

I have been unreachable
I have been unteachable
I have been unwilling
And I've been undesirable

And sometimes I have been unwise
I've been undone by what I'm unsure of
But because of you
And all that you went through
I know that I have never been unloved

I have been unbroken
I have been unmended
I have been uneasy
And I've been unapproachable

I've been unemotional
I've been unexceptional
I've been undecided
And I have been unqualified

Unaware - I have been unfair
I've been unfit for blessings from above
But even I can see
The sacrifice You made for me
To show that I have never been unloved

Unaware - I have been unfair
I've been unfit for blessings from above
But even I can see
The sacrifice You made for me
To show that I have never been unloved

It's because of you
And all that you went through
I know that I have never been unloved

The Crowd or the Cross

Song: The Wonderful Cross by Isaac Watts

When I survey the wondrous cross
on which the Prince of glory died,
my richest gain I count but loss,
and pour contempt on all my pride.

See, from his head,
his hands, his feet
sorrow and love flow mingled down
did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
or thorns compose so rich a crown?

O wonderful cross!
O the wonderful cross
bids me come and die
and find that I may truly live.
O wonderful cross!
O the wonderful cross!
All who gather here by grace
draw near and bless your name.

Were the whole realm
of nature mine,
that were an offer far too small;
love so amazing, so divine,
demands my soul, my life, my all.

O wonderful cross!
O the wonderful cross
bids me come and die
and find that I may truly live.
O wonderful cross!
O the wonderful cross!
All who gather here by grace
draw near and bless your name.

O wonderful cross!
O the wonderful cross
bids me come and die
and find that I may truly live.

“Whatever” Christianity by Marsha West

2006-11-22T16:46:00.000+08:00

So, if the Bible isn’t a Christian’s authority, what is? Short answer: Anything he or she wants it to be. You sort of make up your religion as you go along. Does this strike a cord? Christianity has become a blend of religious beliefs. Add a pinch of modern psychology, a dash of Buddhism, a teaspoonful of Catholic mysticism, a cup of New Age spirituality, mix well, and voila! You’ve cooked up a batch of New Age Christianity.
…
Those who practice pragmatic Christianity believe that today’s churches must be relevant. The Church has to adjust to our modern culture. In order to recruit the unsaved, Christianity must rid itself of its antiquated dogma and doctrines. The Church must become “inclusive,” “non-judgmental,” and “tolerant.” To accomplish this, the atmosphere in churches should be warm and inviting and its members must be friendly.

Marsha West has written a two-part commentary titled “Whatever” Christianity that laments the theological relativism commonly seen in many Christians. To these post-modern Christians, even outright heresy becomes acceptable.

In her commentary, West singles out people like Robert Schuller who “is more concerned with people’s “self-esteem” than with their eternal souls” and “bases his theology on what people want to hear rather than on God’s Word”; Rick Warren who welcomes Roman Catholics, Mormons and Jews into his pastor-training programs because he thinks the core essentials of Christianity are non-essentials; C. Peter Wagner who claims that the ministries of the prophets and apostles have been restored; and Brian McLaren who requires a moratorium to determine his stand on sodomy.

In the light of this post-modern theological epidemic that has already crept into the Church, what should be our response? West believes that we “must become skilled at recognizing heresy and false teaching within the Church.” It is our duty as followers of Christ to hold on to His teachings and “remain within the pale of orthodoxy.”

Articles:
"Whatever" Christianity (14/11/2006)
"Whatever" Christianity (Part 2) (18/11/2006)

一切歌颂赞美 (Hokkien version)

2006-11-11T19:30:00.000+08:00

This is a somewhat "old" song, which I used to play in my former church's worship team a long time ago. To listen to how it is sung in Mandarin, click here (WMA format, unfortunately) to download the file (not exactly my favorite music arrangement as I prefer something "edgier"). After you have the tune memorized, try singing the song in Hokkien :)

一切歌颂赞美
i chiat ko siong o-lo
都归我主我的神
long kui goa Chu goa e Sin
你是配得歌颂与赞美
I si phoe tek ko siong kap o-lo
我们高声呼喊
lan lang ko sia ho hoah
高举耶稣之名
ko khi Ia-so. e mia
哈利路亚！
ha-li-lu-ia

Chorus:
赞美主哈利路亚！噢
o-lo Chu ha-li-lu-ia o
赞美主哈利路亚
o-lo Chu ha-li-lu-ia
哈利路亚 (x2)
ha-li-lu-ia

English Translation
Consecrate our praise and adoration to my God
You are worthy of our sacrifice
Shout unto Lord Jesus lift up the name of God

Praise the Lord Hallelujah
Praise the Lord Hallelujah
Hallelujah (x2)

Pinyin (Romanized Mandarin) Translation
yi qie ge song zan mei
dou gui wo zhu wo di shen
ni shi pei de ge song yu zan mei
wo yao gao sheng hu han
gao ju ye su zhi ming
ha li lu ya

zan mei zhu ha li lu ya o
zan mei zhu ha li lu ya
ha li lu ya (x2)

Worship at Bible college

2006-11-03T21:58:00.000+08:00

I have never picture myself as a worship/song leader. Right from the outset, I would think of myself primarily as a musician in the music ministry. Pianist? Definitely. Acoustic guitarist? Well maybe. But since entering Bible college, I have been called to lead worship on two occasions. The first time was at a recent spiritual retreat. The second time was during the Christian Spirituality class today.

Having attended children's Sunday school in the 1980s and going through my teens in the 1990s, I do have a certain fondness for many worship songs from that particular period. I remember that as a musician in a charismatic church, I used to have a dislike for hymns. However, I gradually grew to appreciate them over time. Now whenever I attend services where hymns are sung, I would savor the rich and wonderful truths penned by Christian men of old who had a deep reverence for the centrality of the cross, the sovereignty and the grace of God.

This Bible college is rather conservative when it comes to worship. Whenever we have chapel services, the songs are mostly hymns from our college hymnal. If we do incorporate contemporary songs in chapel services, they would be of the slow variety. Personally, I prefer a balanced mix of both fast and slow songs. So when I was asked to lead worship, I wanted to incorporate fast songs. As I do not want to alienate my classmates too much, who come from a wide spectrum of denominations, my criterion for these fast songs is that it must be familiar to my classmates. Needless to say, the songs must also be doctrinally sound.

During the spiritual retreat, I have deliberately chosen worship songs that were popular in the 1980s and the early 1990s. I decided to repeat the same thing today. I avoided songs from Hillsong, which seems to be the rage in churches nowadays. And I do think “Lord I lift Your Name on High” has been done to death everywhere.

All in all, I have chosen eight songs. Children's Sunday school songs like “The Butterfly Song,” “Walking in the light of God,” and “In His Time.” Coincidentally and to my delightful surprise, during the chapel service following the Christian Spirituality class, we sang “With Christ in the vessel,” another Sunday School song.

I have also chose songs like the evergreen “As the Deer,” “How Lovely are Thy Dwelling Places,” and a fast “O Magnify the Lord.” I thought of ending with a fast “My Life is in You” but eventually decided against it during the worship. Of course, the highlight of the worship session would be the amazing hymn “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” which ministered to me, and I believe, and to everyone a lot.

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ, my God;
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See, from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down;
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

Exams are coming up!

2006-11-01T21:39:00.000+08:00

I will be quite busy for the next two weeks or so. However still, I might continue to write if I do have the time. There are many assignments and readings to complete, not forgetting the countless Greek paradigms and vocabulary that I have to memorize. Apparently, Bible college is not as easy as some may think.

To those who read my blog, please pray for me. I need to concentrate on my studies but I do find myself rather affected by some personal issues lately. Time is quite crucial to me right now and I need to effectively manage the way I use my time.

Luther's Theology of the Cross

2006-10-21T10:34:00.000+08:00

19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1.20].
20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.
22. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.

The above theses are taken from the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518, where Martin Luther was called upon to defend his theses.

I will be doing a paper on a book by Mark Shaw, titled 10 Great Ideas from Church History. One of the chapters covers Luther’s theology of the cross, which regards God as working through paradox. For instance, Matthew 10:39 states: “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Another example of paradox is though the world sees Christ dying on the cross as a disgrace and a failure, Christ’s work on the cross is actually a victorious triumphant work of redemption that was planned before creation began.

This excerpt below, which is taken from 10 Great Ideas from Church History, shows how the theology of the cross can be used to critically assess the rising prevalence of seeker-sensitive sermons and the disregard of the importance of good theology in too many churches.

But how can decision-makers translate Luther’s great idea into good decisions? Let’s look at some possible decisions that might unleash the power of the cross in our churches, families and organizations.

Use #1: The cross and preaching. By “preaching the cross” I don’t mean we should preach only evangelistic sermons. Instead we need to bring the perspective of the cross into everything we preach. William Willimon, chaplain at Duke University, writes about preaching to consumer-oriented audiences who appear to want entertainment more than enlightenment. It’s easy for preachers to make one of two mistakes in responding to such congregations. One mistake is to give in “to their consumer mind-set” with “feel-good” sermons that avoid biblical truths. The second mistake is to give up. We can develop the attitude that “my people don’t care about the gospel. They just want to be entertained.” What Willimon has discovered about beating the consumer mindset is striking:
My first priority, then, is to preach a sermon that speaks about the gospel, not a speech that explores people’s experience. In the admirable attempts to be relevant, too many sermons I hear whitewash therapeutic solutions with biblical “principles” where the Bible ends up sounding like the latest rage of popular psychology.
What we need in our churches is talk “about Jesus Christ and what he has done for us and what he calls us to do for him and for one another.” When we lift up the cross of Christ each week as both a way of salvation and a way of seeing, we will turn an audience into a church and consumers into the committed. As David Wells has written: “The Church is called to declare the message of the cross, not to uncover God’s hidden purposes in the world or the secrets of his inner therapy.” We must bring people under the cross to get them over the world.

Use #2: The cross and theological literacy. If theology in general is despised in our churches and organizations, then the theology of the cross will be marginalized as well. When we cultivate our people’s appetite for doctrine, however, the theology of the cross can be unleashed.

George Barna has described the “theology of the typical American” as “nothing less than frightening.” What is the problem? “The lack of accurate knowledge about God’s Word, about his principles for life, and the apparent absence of influence the Church is having upon the thinking and behavior of this nation is a rude awakening for those who assume we are in the midst of a spiritual revival.” This theological slippage also appears among evangelicals. Denominations that were once known for their defense of the faith now talk only of marketing their churches or ordering their private worlds. Yet “to value theology,” argues David Wells, “is to value the means by which the Church can become more faithful and more effective in this world.”

Providentially, the structures for the theological renewal are already in place. Adult Sunday-school classes and weekday small group dot the landscape. Useful resources that could be studied by those in such networks abound. Alister McGrath’s The Mystery of the Cross would be one place to begin. New theological methods such as narrative theology, which employs story forms to communicate theological truth, have made theological study more accessible to a wider audience.

When theology matters, the theology of the cross will matter more. Keeping in mind Luther’s warning that a theology of glory will do more harm than good, wise decision-makers will take practical action to raise the theological literacy of their congregations.

More articles on the theology of the cross can be found here.

Jonathan Edwards is My Homeboy

2006-10-15T09:07:00.000+08:00

For those of you who have not read Christianity Today’s feature article Young, Restless and Reformed, which appeared last month, do hop over to the website to read it. One of my classmates had kindly told me about this article. I was able to read it in my college library, as my Bible college has a monthly subscription to Christianity Today.

I have found it to be quite a fair and balanced article about the resurgence of Calvinism among the Southern Baptists.

An excerpt from the article:

It's because the young Calvinists value theological systems far less than God and his Word. Whatever the cultural factors, many Calvinist converts respond to hallmark passages like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. "I really don't like to raise any banner of Calvinism or Reformed theology," said Eric Lonergan, a 23-year-old University of Minnesota graduate. "Those are just terms. I just like to look at the Word and let it speak for itself."

That's the essence of what Joshua Harris calls "humble orthodoxy." He reluctantly debates doctrine, but he passionately studies Scripture and seeks to apply all its truth.

"If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, 'It's unbelievable. Why would God choose any of us?'" Harris said. "You are so amazed by grace, you're not picking a fight with anyone, you're just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn't have to save anybody."

It appears that someone is taking orders for the “Jonathan Edwards is My Homeboy” T-shirts too.

News report: British Airways employee sent home for wearing cross necklace

2006-10-14T23:19:00.000+08:00

An excerpt from an article published today:

BA said its policy was that employees must wear jewelry, including religious symbols, under their uniforms.

"This rule applies for all jewelry and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the cross," the airline said in a statement.

"Other items such as turbans, hijabs and bangles can be worn as it is not practical for staff to conceal them beneath their uniforms."

Hmm... I am now waiting with bated breath for the outbreaks of violent street protests and riots staged by Christians around the world, demanding for the CEO of British Airways to publicly apologize for offending Christian sensitivities. Perhaps there might be sporadic killings from this outrage too.

Link:
British Airways employee says she was sent home from work for wearing cross necklace, International Herald Tribune

Food for thought: Anglicanism and missions

2006-10-12T23:07:00.000+08:00

Just a quick food for thought...

Last month, I submitted a paper that compare and contrast the liturgical services of an Anglican church and a Roman Catholic Church. In order to do the paper, I had to visit St Andrew’s Cathedral and Cathedral of the Good Shepherd. Those visits were quite an eye-opener. Well... I finally got my paper back today and thank God, I believe I did pretty well for someone whose academic background was in IT rather than the humanities. I am also reminded of a thought that I had after I handed in my paper last month.

Unlike today where the majority of the Anglican Church is literate, people back in the days of the Reformation were mostly illiterate. Through the lectures and my readings on Anglicanism, I learned that one of the reasons for its emphasis on liturgical ceremonies was to impart Bible teachings to the laity through the use of our three major senses: sight, sound and smell. The observance of the liturgical year is one such example.

For those of us who comes from non-episcopal denominations, perhaps this is one thing we could learn from the Anglican Church when we are exploring various ways to educate illiterate people in our missions programmes.

EE-Taow! The Mouk Story

2006-10-09T09:21:00.000+08:00

"EE-Taow" means "it’s very true" in the Mouk language.

During the Theology of Mission class last week, my lecturer showed a video by New Tribes Mission about the Mouk tribe of Papua New Guinea. The reenactment of their salvation testimony was quite powerful and moving, and so I thought I should read up a little more about the Mouk people. And lo and behold, I found the same video I watched while googling for the Mouk tribe.

According to the lecturer, the team of missionaries took about two years to study the Mouk language and way of life, to educate the Mouk people, and to translate the Bible into the Mouk language. When the missionaries were ready to present the Gospel, they invited the entire village to a series of Bible teachings in which they explained the Bible in the language of the tribe. For three months, the villagers would gather together twice a day on Monday to Friday where each session lasted about an hour, while the missionaries chronologically walked through the key points of the Bible.

You can watch the EE-Taow! The Mouk Story video on Google Videos or download the entire video here. Or else you can read the story of the Mouk people here.

First Year at Bible College

2006-10-08T15:30:00.000+08:00

This is my first post to my blog in quite a while. To some of my readers, I’m apologize for not being able to reply to your emails because of my heavy workload.

If readers wish to know the main reason I have not been updating my blog, well… the book on the left pretty much says everything. Yes… William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek has been taking up most of my time. I am currently in the first semester of my first year in Bible college. So far, my college experience has been fantastic. My classmates and lecturers are great and the college environment allows me to be exposed to different theological traditions. There are people of many nationalities (e.g. Chinese, Malaysians, Koreans, Japanese, Americans etc) and various denominations (e.g. Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals etc).

This semester I have taken on a total of seven subjects, and they are: Greek I, Hermeneutics, Old Testament Backgrounds, Survey of Church History, Christian Spirituality, Theology of Mission, and Church Music Ministry. For the past couple of months, I have been extremely busy with school assignments, quizzes, readings and lectures. There is a Greek quiz almost every week. In fact, I would be sitting for another one this coming Tuesday.

On top of that, I have been going to work after classes as well. This may get pretty tiring at times, but thanks to God for placing me a work environment where I can, sort of, multi-task between my work and my studies. So to sum it up, I am studying full-time at my Bible college, working full-time, and at the same time, am involved in different areas of ministry in my church.

Because of my daily travels between the college and the workplace, I thought it would be best to get for myself a notebook. So I got myself a MacBook (2 GHz Intel Core Duo). I am currently typing this post on my MacBook. This is my first switch from a PC to Mac and I must say that the transition has been smooth. I have upgraded the RAM to 2 GB and as of this moment, I am running 3 operating systems (two of them using Parallels): OSX (Tiger), Windows XP, and Kubuntu Linux 6.06.

I would like to end this post with a testimony. A day before the Greek I mid-semester exam, my wisdom tooth was causing so much pain that I could not concentrate on my Greek I revisions. By the evening, the pain was so unbearable that I had to go to the dentist who gave me an injection to numb the pain. Skipping or postponing the exam was not an option for me. The dentist had also prescribed some painkillers so that I could focus on my revisions and the exam. To cut the story short, I sat for the exam and I have received the result, which is surprisingly good. So I would like to give thanks to God for the good grade despite the ordeal I had went through the previous evening.

Proclaiming the Gospel by R.C. Sproul

2006-07-04T09:09:00.000+08:00

I have transcribed R.C. Sproul’s message Proclaiming the Gospel, which is part of the series Understanding the Gospel from his radio programme Renewing Your Mind. I first became aware of this message by a reader’s comment from one of my earlier posts. The audio sermon message can be heard here.

PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL

Delivered by R.C. Sproul on 22 June 2006

Today we come to the conclusion of our recent study of the new document that is been released, concerning the essence of the gospel which is the Evangelical Celebration. We’ve been looking carefully at the second part of that document, the list of articles of affirmations and denials, and of course there are eighteen such articles incorporated in this document and today we come to the final article, article number eighteen, which reads as follows:

We affirm that Jesus Christ commands his followers to proclaim the Gospel to all living persons, evangelizing everyone everywhere, and discipling believers within the fellowship of the church. A full and faithful witness to Christ includes the witness of personal testimony, godly living, and acts of mercy and charity to our neighbor, without which the preaching of the Gospel appears barren.

We deny that the witness of personal testimony, godly living, and acts of mercy and charity to our neighbors constitutes evangelism apart from the proclamation of the Gospel.

This is somewhat lengthy in the concluding article and what the document is getting at here is a strong reaffirmation of the Great Commission. And what is called the Great Commission is Christ’s mandate to His disciples and to His Church that He gave us prior to His ascension when He commanded His disciples to go into all the world and to preach the gospel to every living creature – to make disciples from all tribes and people and tongues and nations. And that has defined the missionary task of the Church since the first century.

Recently I had a discussion, not really wasn’t that recent now that I think about it, with a missionary that has been laboring at a remote part of the world, ministering to a group of people who has never seen a white person before, and they were primitive in their culture and so on and had no contact with the outside world. And this person labored with this tribe for several years and when they finally came to an understanding of the gospel, many were converted to Christ including the chief of the village.

And on one occasion the chief asked the missionary how long ago Jesus lived on the earth. And the woman tried to find a way to communicate in the language of the people the vast distance of time of two thousand years and there was no way she could make the communication possible until they talked about so many moons and so many generations and so on. And so finally, the chief took some sticks and he let each stick represents a generation and he asked the question and he said, “Did Jesus lived during my generation?” And the missionary said no. And so then he put a second stick and he said, “Well did He lived during my father’s life?” “No.” And then the third stick. “My grandfather’s life?” “No.” And with each stick that he put on the ground his confidence grew more and more that stretch. And so after he had this vast length of sticks on the ground stretching all the way back to the first century, he was beside himself and he said to her, “Well if Jesus lived so long ago, why is it that we’re only hearing about Him now?”

Well of course the only answer we can give to a question like that is that we have not been as faithful as we ought to be to the Great Commission of Christ. In fact there remain many many people on the globe today who have never heard the name of Christ. In fact today, a record is being set in the world there are more people dying today on this day in human history without ever having heard the gospel of Christ than on any day in past history. And the record that is being set today is breaking the record that was set yesterday and today’s record will be broken tomorrow because we are at a point now in history where the population expansion of the world is moving at a more rapid pace than it is the pace of the churches outreach in missionary activities to preach the gospel to every living creature. And perhaps there is no generation with less of an excuse to fulfill the Great Commission than ours because the world has become so much smaller than it was ever was in the past with our ability to travel with the modern conveniences and conveyances that we have. Again the first affirmation is a reminder that Christ commands His followers to proclaim the gospel to all living persons, evangelizing everyone everywhere.

Restrictive Evangelism
Now there is a reaction in our day, against the whole enterprise of evangelism as it’s understood as been proselytizing and that people ought to mind their own business and not try to influence other people to leave whatever religion they’re in at the time to embrace Christ. In fact, in many churches in our day that are engaged in evangelism here in the United States, it’s passively assumed that certain people or certain groups, either ethnic groups or religious groups are out of bounds for evangelism because if you begin an outreach to Muslims or to Buddhists in the neighborhood or to the Jewish community in the neighborhood, you expose yourself to much hostility as evangelism inevitably involves a conflict of ideas - which conflict of ideas can sometimes escalates into more serious kind, if there is such a thing as a more serious kind of conflict than that. And so, many of us are very passive or very restrictive in the outreach of our churches and don’t fulfill the mandate to preach the gospel to all people everywhere. Not only do we fail it in the international level, but we fail to fulfill the Great Commission even at the local level where we live.

It’s says the command is to proclaim the gospel to all living persons, evangelizing everyone everywhere, and discipling believers within the fellowship of the church. Now that’s there for a reason: that the mandate of the Great Commission is not merely to proclaim, but it is also to educate or to disciple. In Jesus’ Commission, He said preach the gospel and make disciples. Now a disciple is a learner in biblical terms. And a disciple is a student. And that means after people respond to the gospel, they’re to be engaged in more than enjoying the fellowship of the Church or even the worship of the Church, they are also called to be deeply involved in the educational exercise and operation of the Church, because the Church exists not only to proclaim but also to ground the converts to Christ in the deep understanding of the things of God. And the early Church is the distinction was between didache, which is the educational catechetical instruction as distinguished from the kerugma, which was the proclamation. The early Church saw evangelism and those who responded to the evangelism, wherein brought into the fold of the Church and that began the nurture and discipling as students and followers of Christ.

Now it goes on to say, a full and faithful witness to Christ includes the witness of personal testimony, godly living, and acts of mercy and charity to our neighbor, without which the preaching of the Gospel appears barren. Now let me say first about this, that this section of article eighteen speaks about different ways to bear witness to Christ.

Evangelism and Witnessing
Now, I’ve said before in other programmes and I’ll say now again in this context. In the New Testament there is a difference or a distinction between evangelism and witnessing. And I say that for this reason that in the contemporary popular jargon of Christians, Christians tend to use the term, to witness, as a synonym for the verb, to evangelize. As if the words were interchangeable. Now, to bear witness to Christ is to call attention to Him in many different ways. We do it by the examples we seek to set with godly living. We seek to bear witness or to make manifest the presence of Christ through deeds and acts of mercy by feeding the hungry and giving shelter to the homeless and all of these charitable endeavors. Those are all kinds of witnessing, but they are not evangelism. Evangelism is one form of witnessing. So that all evangelism does bear witness to Christ so all evangelism is witnessing, but not all witnessing is evangelism. There are many ways that we bear witness to the Lordship of Christ. One of which and we may even say, the chief of which is the proclamation of the gospel.

Why do we say this? It’s important because many people say, "Well, I do my evangelism by my example. I don’t ever proclaim Christ with words, I proclaim Christ with my life." Now what can your life tell people about the content of the gospel? They can look at you from now and till Kingdom come and still know nothing of the atonement of Christ, know nothing of the resurrection of Christ, know nothing of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. How can anybody read that simply by watching your life? Your godly example may provoke somebody’s interest and say, why did you live the way that you live? That may the occasion for you to explain the gospel to them but the bare naked example itself will not communicate the gospel to people. And sometimes we use that as an excuse for remaining silent and not proclaiming the gospel to people. Say well I’m not going to push my views on them verbally. I’ll wait until they respond to my stellar example. The other weakness of this argument is few of us are so far along in our sanctification that the world is beating a path to our door, knocking on our door saying, “What is it that makes you so special? What do you have that I don’t have? And tell me how I can get it.” In fact, the closest scrutiny they give to us, they wonder whether we believe the gospel at all.

But it goes on to say, a full and faithful witness to Christ includes, for example, the witness of personal testimony, the witness of godly living, acts of mercy and charity to our neighbor, without which the preaching of the Gospel appears barren. Now obviously if I show no concern for the basic daily needs of my neighbor and all I do is to preach to them about Jesus, my preaching will sound and seem barren to them. Remember it is through the preaching that God has chosen to save the world and it is the gospel that God uses His power to bring people to Christ and God may even use that proclamation despite my one-dimensional character of it. But at the same time, we are warned in the New Testament by James for example, when James writes to his people, when he says in chapter two of his epistle, “What does it profit my brother if someone says that he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?” In the midst of that critical discussion, in the second chapter, James, he says this, “If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food and one of you says to them, depart in peace. Be warmed and filled. But you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?”

See what kind of witness is that if we just say to people, be warmed and be filled? That is a barren witness, and that is the biblical text that underlies the sentiments that is expressed here in article number eighteen. Now when we get to the denial we read this: “We deny that the witness of personal testimony, godly living, and acts of mercy and charity to our neighbors constitutes evangelism apart from the proclamation of the Gospel.” I think most of us can see how our bare example of living is not evangelism. And I think that some of us can see that the very meeting of people’s worldly needs in terms of food and clothing and relief and employment and those acts of charity and mercy that the Church is to be engaged in. We could be giving away food and shelter and clothes till Kingdom come and a person still not know the gospel. They may be responding, saying hey these people care about me and they’re giving evidence of that and they demonstrate the love of God for me. But again, there is no content of the gospel that is communicated by handing somebody a loaf of bread. We are to give them the loaf of bread. We are to give them the cup of cold water. But in that cup of cold water, there is no information about the person and work of Christ. They still don’t know the gospel.

Personal Testimony
But what about the other kind of witnessing that is specifically mentioned here and that is the giving of a personal testimony. The use of personal testimony is a very highly favorite and popular version of outreach in the evangelical church, where people stand up in church on Sunday morning or they speak privately to their friends or even to strangers on an airplane or whatever. And they give their personal testimony and their personal testimony being, what has happened to them as a result of having become a Christian?

Now I think that is a very important element of our communication of the things of God to people and there’s great value to personal testimony. But we have to remember that the personal testimony is not the gospel. God has not promised that our personal testimony would not return to Him void. God has not chosen the power of our personal testimony as the means by which He will save the world. Because what my personal testimony does is indirectly talks about Christ but specifically talks about me and my particular situation. And it may or may not relate to where the person is that I am communicating with. But the gospel relates to everybody. The gospel has objective compelling truth contained within it. And that’s what we’re proclaimed to teach. Again, the testimony may be a lead-in for that, but let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that because we’ve given a personal testimony and therefore we, quote, share the gospel with somebody. Because the gospel has a definite content that people need to hear and need to understand.

I think for example, the New Testament of the man born blind that Jesus healed. And when He healed him, the Pharisees got all upset at the claim of his healing and they investigated the man’s family and the man’s family verified that Jesus had indeed restored the blind man’s sight. And so they came and interrogated the blind man again and say, “Well did this man really give back your sight? How did He do it?” “Well, He did it by mixing some clay and some spit and put it on my eyes.” “When was that?” “It was on the Sabbath day.” “Well then He was working on the Sabbath day. This man is an evil-doer. He can’t be an agent of God. What do you think He is?” And he said, “Well I think He is a prophet.” They pushed the interrogation further with him and finally he says out of frustration presumably, “Hey, all I know is that once I was blind and now I see. You guys figure it out.” He wasn’t a theologian. He himself did not yet know the full content of the gospel. All he knew was Jesus has done for him. And that’s valuable. Because even we don’t have a grip on the full content of the gospel, we can become a witness for Christ the day that we are converted by sharing with other people what Christ has done in our lives. But again, we must never let the personal testimony become a substitute for the proclamation of the gospel itself.

Again the denial, “We deny that the witness of personal testimony, godly living, and acts of mercy and charity to our neighbors constitutes evangelism apart from the proclamation of the Gospel.”

SHORT INTERMISSION

At the conclusion of this celebration of evangelism, which is interdenominational, there is a statement of commitment that is attached to the end of the document that reads as follows:

As evangelicals united in the Gospel, we promise to watch over and care for one another, to pray for and forgive one another, and to reach out in love and truth to God's people everywhere, for we are one family, one in the Holy Spirit, and one in Christ.

Centuries ago it was truly said that in things necessary there must be unity, in things less than necessary there must be liberty, and in all things there must be charity. We see all these Gospel truths as necessary.

Now the point of this concluding commitment is this: that though there is a wide diversity of faiths represented here and denominations and those who are involved in this document, and though there is a clear recognition that there are all kinds of theological issues that still divide us at this point and at that point, what the document is focusing on is that which has been the glue and cement of evangelical unity since the Reformation – the Gospel itself. This is the necessary point by which Christians can come together in fellowship.

The "Cage Stage" Calvinist

2006-06-30T16:00:00.000+08:00

"A lot of new and ignorant Calvinists need to...well, shut up. I know that isn't the politest phrase in the book, but it is the truth. Most of the damage done in these matters is done by people who are in what Calvinists call the "cage phase," those inaugural few months when you know very little except some version of TULIP and you won't be quiet about that. These are people who need to get a very large stack of books and get some roots going, but instead they go and pick a fight with whoever is least likely to understand what they are talking about. These converts- often impressionable students or very unread laity- can be obnoxious, immature and thoughtless in their assaults. They've done a lot of damage and there is no apologizing for them. I would say they should be recognized for what they are- untaught, ignorant, and often, young. Most them will grow out of it. A few remain that way until their next phase." - Michael Spencer

This post is an important reminder to all of us, and especially to me, who are passionately and unapologetically Calvinistic. I would imagine that every Calvinist who first embraces and experiences the joy in discovering TULIP would have undergone the "cage" stage where we were extremely zealous for the doctrines of grace (I do believe I still am!). The new Calvinists would typically display a disdain for anything and anyone remotely Arminian, often times go around looking for debates with Arminians to fuel their hyper-evangelistic zeal for the absolute sovereignty of God.

While I believe that having zeal for the doctrines of grace is not a bad thing, what’s also important is that we must always show grace and kindness to those who have not yet arrive at our Reformed position. After all, we are preaching the doctrines of grace! The reason we are now able to rejoice in these biblical truths is solely due to the grace of God and not because of our own intellect. Hence, the doctrines of grace are supposed to humble us, not to make us spiritually proud.

That being said, I do regard historic Arminianism as heresy. I strongly believe that Arminianism qualifies as a false gospel because of its opposition to biblical truths. However, in spite of this, I also believe most Arminians are quite inconsistent in their theology. Most Arminians, in actual fact, do pray like Calvinists and have not fully examined the worked-out implications of Arminianism. And this is why I generally regard Arminians as my brothers and sisters in Christ and will continue to have Christian fellowship with them.

There are two extremes we must avoid. The first is to abandon the truth for the sake of love, while the second is to speak the truth without love. The former is regrettably quite common in Christianity today, while the latter is perhaps why we Calvinists are sometimes accused of being self-righteous and judgmental. I do think that in most cases, the accusations are often without basis and are usually cheap shots fired at us when our critics find themselves cornered in arguments.

Therefore, let us always bear in mind the teaching to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Even as we fervently believe as Spurgeon believed, that “Calvinism is the gospel,” we must constantly be conscious of our attitude towards others. Our goal should first and foremost be to preach Christ, not merely to win theological arguments.

Further reading:

Combating the Calvinist Virus

2006-06-30T12:05:00.000+08:00

This is a hilarious satire of Calvinism that was posted by nateNotes some time back. The satire makes reference to Ergun Caner, an anti-Calvinist who, like many critics of Calvinism, has a poor understanding of Calvinism.

For those who have not been following the exchange between James White and Ergun Caner, the compilation of emails can be found here and here. Frankly speaking, I must say I am appalled at the unbecoming manner that Caner conducted himself.

Combating the Calvinist Virus

My fellow Arminians:

It is with a deep and abiding sense of responsibility that I offer this public statement. As you may know, the esteemed Dr. Ergun Caner recently alerted us to a virulent strand of theological plague that threatens all our churches. The technical name of this virus is Voluntatem Dei, more popularly known as Calvinism. Common symptoms include, but are not limited to:

fewer, shorter, or non-existent altar calls
narrower parameters of baptism
elevated levels of expository preaching
shallow interest in the latest Christian fads
accumulation of old theological texts
heightened indignation at popular worship
obsession with tulips

Early detection is key to fighting Calvinism. Presymptomatic signs include increased interest in Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. If you suspect a preliminary infection of Calvinism in your church, follow these steps immediately:

Quarantine the affected Christians from other church members. Unfortunately, you can't kick them out of the church right away, but you can tell them to shut up or face church discipline. Don't let their weak excuses about "Bible study" and "the truth" shake your resolve. Logic and reason are one of Calvinism's most insidious routes into the church, and you must limit exposure to the best of your ability.

Isolate the affected Christians from Puritan books. John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Spurgeon are particularly crucial to deny your church members. Popular contemporary authors in the Puritan tradition are R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and John MacArthur. Other contemporary writers include C.J. Mahaney, Steve Lawson, Ligon Duncan, and Sinclair Ferguson. Other authors should be avoided just as strenuously; this list is not exhaustive.

Inoculate the affected Christians with hyper-Calvinists. Tell them of hyper-Calvinists you know who won't share the gospel with anyone while destroying every church they infest. If you don't know any hyper-Calvinists, make one up. As part of the isolation process, don't let them know about churches pastored by any of the authors listed above. It won't do to let them know of loving, growing, evangelistic Calvinist churches.

Inject heavy dosages of anthropocentric theology. Begin by hinging God's actions on man's choice. Tell your patient it would be immoral for God to let anyone go to Hell without a completely libertarian choice. Then tell them God doesn't want to love robots, and that a totally libertarian will was God's greatest gift to man. Make God's salvation completely contingent on man's response. Again, isolate your patient from Calvinist mutterings about God's free choice, His self-defined righteousness, or His use of means in the accomplishment of His will.

Feed the affected Christians a steady dose of Evangelism. Make altar calls, decision cards, revival week, aisle-walking, and hand-raising equivalent to apostolic evangelism in the minds of your patients. Then hammer away at Calvinists who don't do these things for lacking evangelistic zeal. Again, isolate your patient from examples of Calvinists who call for repentance in ways you don't approve.

Bring down the affected Christian's expectations. If they want to talk about Greek, call them elitists. If they bring up church history, make up your own. And if they mention exegeting John 6, divert them with an alternate interpretation of a completely unrelated verse in an entirely unrelated context. Gradually ease your patients away from the biblical text, and remind them that knowledge puffs up, but Evangelistic love edifies.

In the end, no measure of success is guaranteed. Despite your best efforts, you might lose some of your church members to Calvinism. If that happens, the best thing you can do is cut them loose. If you don't actually throw them out of your church, create such an atmosphere of suspicion and paranoia that they leave of their own accord. Let them join a Calvinist church if they wish. Leper colonies have their place.

Finally, be aware that the greatest threat comes not from your own church members studying their Bibles and reading Puritan-style writers. If you're leading your church responsibly, you have them so busy with the latest program and so involved with the latest Evangelistic crusade that they don't have time for indepth study and meditation. No, the greatest threat comes from other Calvinists infiltrating your ranks and releasing their deadly toxin among your church members.

This is biological terrorism. Treat it as such, and show no mercy to Calvinists who would threaten your church with an outbreak of 'Tulip's Disease.' To aid churches in guarding against theological terrorism, I'm proud to institute the Department of Arminian Insecurity (DAI). The following chart represents the current Calvinist threat level nationwide; you should refer to it frequently as the threat level will fluctuate radically around the Founder's Conference and near the end of October:

Since he is the man most responsible for the creation of this department, I'm proud to introduce Ergun Caner as the first Secretary of the Department of Arminian Insecurity. Rest assured that the next secretary will be someone who equals or excells Secretary Caner in bombast, rhetoric, and cheap shots. Calvinist terrorism can't be treated with kid gloves. All further questions will be answered by my press secretary, Dave Hunt. Although I believe he's already fully answered any question you might have, and further questioning would be a waste of time. Good day.

P.S. The DAI is a little cash-strapped, being a new department and all. If there are any patriotic Arminians out there who want to design a more graphically pleasing Calvinist Advisory System, the DAI is certainly interested in hosting said graphic.

Source: http://natenotes.blogspot.com/2006/02/combating-calvinist-virus.html

Update! Another announcement from the DAI, titled Calvinist Propaganda, can be found here.

Arminian Grace

2006-06-24T12:30:00.000+08:00

A funny parody of one of the most well-known Christian hymns, which I came across at Challies.com.

Arminian "grace!" How strange the sound,
Salvation hinged on me.
I once was lost then turned around,
Was blind then chose to see.

What "grace" is it that calls for choice,
Made from some good within?
That part that wills to heed God's voice,
Proved stronger than my sin.

Thru many ardent gospel pleas,
I sat with heart of stone.
But then some hidden good in me,
Propelled me toward my home.

When we've been there ten thousand years,
Because of what we've done,
We've no less days to sing our praise,
Than when we first begun.

Kim Riddlebarger: Some Dos and Don'ts of Evangelism

2006-06-23T09:04:00.000+08:00

Kim Riddlebarger has given a couple of excellent advice on evangelism from a Reformed perspective. These points are taken from his lectures on evangelism, Telling People the Truth in Love. Here are some of the points that resonates with me:

The essence of evangelism is communicating the correct information about sin and grace, simply and clearly. Talk about the law and the gospel, not about infralapsarianism and divine simplicity. That comes later!
Avoid the use of Christian jargon. Speak about real sin, real guilt, real shed blood!
Stick with the subject—don’t get side-tracked. When the conversation wanders, pull it back to center stage—the law and the gospel.
Evangelism is not about winning an argument, but leading people to Christ. Discussions may get heated and intense at times—that’s okay. But the purpose of evangelism is not to show why you are right and they are wrong. It is to communicate the truth of the gospel. The message is to be the offence. Not you!
Don’t rush things. Just because someone is not ready to trust in Christ after one encounter does not mean that effective evangelism has not taken place. Pre-evangelism is equally vital. You may plant, but someone else may have to water.
Treat people as objects of concern, not notches in your belt. Establish relationships and friendships whenever possible.
Don’t force things. If people balk, ridicule and otherwise are not interested, back off. Find another time and place. If after repeated attempts to communicate the gospel, and someone still shows an unwillingness to hear what you have to say, "shake the dust off your feet and move on to a new town!"
You don’t have to become a practical Arminian to be a faithful evangelist! A Reformed approach to evangelism simply means telling people the truth in love.

For more of the points (20 in all!), click here to view them.

I would encourage readers to download Riddlebarger's article too. Here are some excerpts from the article on the topic of pre-evangelism:

Pre-evangelism entails two-way communication between the Christian and the non-Christian: “If we wish to communicate, then, we must take the time and the trouble to learn our hearer’s use of language so that they understand what we intend to convey [p.130].” Thus pre-evangelism entails understanding what the non-Christian is saying. It means listening to them and then communicating to them in terms they can understand. This is what we call finding and establishing “common ground.”

Pre-evangelism entails getting a non-Christian to see the futility of unbelief and leaving him in the tension between the real world and his own set of beliefs: “Every person we speak to, whether shop girl or university student, has a set of presuppositions, whether he or she has analyzed them or not....But, in fact, no non-Christian can be consistent to the logic of his presuppositions.

Pre-evangelism entails making sure that the non-Christian understands that these issues are about objective facts of history and not subjective feelings or opinions of individuals: “we must make sure that the individual understands that we are talking about real truth, and not about something vaguely religious which seems to work psychologically. We must make sure that he understands that we are talking about real guilt before God, and we are not offering him merely relief for his guilt feelings. We must make sure that he understands that we are talking to him about history, and that the death of Jesus was not just an ideal or a symbol but a fact of time and space. If we are talking to a person who would not understand the term `space time history’ we can say: `Do you believe that Jesus died in the sense that if you had been there that day, you could have rubbed your finger on the cross and got a splinter in it?’ Until he understands the importance of these things, he is not yet ready to become a Christian [p. 139].”

Suffering and Martyrdom: God's Strategy in the World

2006-06-18T02:58:00.000+08:00

What will you do if you are called to a ministry that, in human terms, has no chance of success?

Until ten years ago, Romania was a Communist country that persecuted true Christians severely. By a miracle, Josef Tson was able to leave the country in the 1960’s; called to the ministry, he studied theology in England. Upon completion of his studies, he announced that he was returning to Romania.

Some of his friends counseled him: "Josef, don’t do that! What chance of success do you think you have?"

Josef replied: "Success? Success? That’s a typically Western way of thinking. In Romania, when one becomes a Christian, one doesn’t think of success. You think of losing your job, losing your income, of beatings, slander, and possibly martyrdom. I’m called to preach the gospel in Romania. So I’ll go."

-- Taken from a sermon on Suffering and Joy

The following article is written many years ago by Josef Tson, who is the President of the Romanian Missionary Society in Wheaton, Illinois, and the President of Emmanuel Bible Institute in Oradea, Romania.

Suffering and Martyrdom: God's Strategy in the World

JESUS CHRIST, as King of kings and Lord of lords, calls people to Himself and demands from them total allegiance to Himself. Nothing of this world, not father or mother, husband or wife, son or daughter, or material goods, ought to stand between Him and His children. Jesus expects them to learn from Him and to become like Him. Then Jesus sends them into the world as His Father sent Him into the world, to spread His message and to be His witnesses. He knows that the world will hate His witnesses and will turn against them with merciless violence. Nonetheless, He expects them to meet that hatred with love, and to face that violence with glad acceptance, following His example by suffering and dying for the lost world. Their suffering and martyrdom are prompted by their allegiance to His own Person and are endured for the purpose of spreading His gospel. Christ's disciples do not seek these things for their own sake, and they do not inflict these on themselves. Their goal is not to suffer and to die; on the contrary, their goal is Christ's Person and Christ's cause in the world, the spreading of His gospel.

Suffering for Christ is not only the suffering of persecution. It begins when one leaves close relatives for the service of Christ. For some, it means selling their possessions and giving them to the poor, which often means giving them for the propagation of the gospel. For others, suffering for Christ may mean agonizing in prayer for the cause of Christ, or agonizing and toiling for the building up of the body of Christ and the perfecting of the saints. Again, to clarify this concept, suffering for Christ is not a self-inflicted suffering. The disciple of Christ seeks to do the will of Christ and to promote the cause of Christ. However, suffering for Christ does mean that the disciple will voluntarily involve himself in suffering and in sacrificial living for Christ and His gospel.

Furthermore, a disciple of Christ thinks as a slave of Christ: he is totally at the disposition of the Master. It is the Master who decides what kind of service this particular disciple should perform. The first duty of the disciple is, therefore, to discover the will of his Master and to do it with joy and passion. If and only if the disciple does his duty can he be certain that his Master is always with him, living in and through him to accomplish His own purposes.

Martyrdom is the function God gives to some of His elect to literally die for the sake of Christ and His gospel. From what the Scriptures intimate, it is apparent that there is a fixed number of God's children who have been predestined by God for this supreme sacrifice. For some, martyrdom might be a quick event, like being shot or beheaded, but for others it could also be preceded by torture. God may have in His plan a long martyrdom of toiling in a labor camp or the misery and pain of a long imprisonment. In such a situation, even if the Christian is released after some time and the actual death occurs at home because of his health having been shattered by the long detention and suffering, I believe that God still reckons the death as a martyrdom. In our more sophisticated age, martyrdom might also take the shape of an imprisonment in a psychiatric hospital a modern form of torture that is possibly the most cruel form of martyrdom where one's mental health and even one's personality are utterly ruined by means of drugs and other psychological torture.

God does everything with a purpose. If He chooses to call His children to suffering and self-sacrifice, He must have very important purposes to achieve through them. Hence, it is the duty of the children to obey their Father even if they do not understand the purpose or rationale behind the Father's command. But the Father wants His children to understand Him because He wants them to develop a mind like His. Therefore, He has revealed His mind, His purposes, and His methods to His children in His written Word and in His Incarnate Word.

God entered into history by sending His Incarnate Son as a suffering slave who would end His own earthly life enduring torture and martyrdom. In this event, God revealed to us that suffering and self-sacrifice are His specific methods for tackling the problems of rebellion, of evil, and of the sin of mankind. Self-sacrifice is the only method consistent with His own nature. For instance, God cannot respond to hate with hate, because if He did He would borrow not only the method but also the nature of the one who is the originator of hate, the evil one. God can only respond with love because He is love, and by suffering and sacrificing Himself for the ones who hate Him, He expresses the essence of His own nature.

Now, the ones who are born of God have become partakers of the nature of God (2 Pet 1:4). Therefore, the children of God are called to tackle the problems of this world with the same agape love which is the nature of God (1 John 4:4-21). More than this, Christ united Himself with His brethren in a union that is comparable to His union with the Father (John 17:21-26). Christ lives in them and continues His work in the world through them. But He has not changed the strategy He used when He was in the world. His method is still the method of the cross. With this in mind, Christ told His disciples that He would send them into the world just as His Father had sent Him into the world; in other words, He sent them to be in the same position and to conquer by the same method, namely, the method of the cross. For precisely this reason, Jesus asked them to take up their own crosses and to follow His example by going into all the world to preach the gospel (to witness), to serve others, and to die for others. Their crosses represent their voluntary, sacrificial involvement in the fulfillment of their Father's purposes with mankind.

Three basic things are achieved by the deaths of the martyrs:

The triumph of God's truth
The defeat of Satan
The glory of God

Martyrdom and the Triumph of God's Truth
The unredeemed world lives in spiritual darkness. The eyes of unbelievers have been darkened by Satan, resulting in their hatred of the light of truth. For people who have lived a long time in darkness, a bright light that suddenly shines upon them produces pain. They cannot stand the light. They hate the light, and they do their best to put it out. Jesus explained the world's reaction to His own coming into the world in these terms (John 3:19-20), and He told His disciples to expect exactly the same kind of treatment.

Speaking in modern terms, each group of people on this planet considers its own religion to be one of its most precious treasures. Thus telling them that their faith is wrong or untrue becomes an unforgivable offense and insult against them. The attempt to change their religion is perceived as an attack on their "national identity." This is why Christian missionaries are met with hostility and violence in every place to which they carry the gospel. For his part, the missionary must be convinced that the population to which he takes the Word lives in the lie of Satan and is damned to hell as a result of it. If the missionary is not convinced of this, he will not risk his life to kindle the light in their midst.

However, when the ambassador of Christ speaks the truth in love, and meets death with joy, a strange miracle occurs: the eyes of unbelievers are opened, they are enabled to see the truth of God, and this leads them to believe in the gospel. Ever since the centurion's eyes were opened at Calvary, ever since he believed that Jesus was the Son of God because he had seen the manner of His death (Mark 15:39), thousands and thousands of Christian martyrdoms over the centuries have produced the same results. Moreover, this was precisely what Tertullian had in mind when he wrote that the blood of the martyrs is the seed out of which new Christians are born. Many, many groups of people on this planet have testified that the darkness which had been over them was dissipated only when a missionary was killed there. However, countless areas and peoples of the world today so experience a darkness that will be vanquished only when enough Christians have given up their lives in martyrdom.

Martyrdom and the Defeat of Satan
Jesus saw His own coming into this world as an invasion of the strong man's house in order to spoil his goods (Matt 12:29). He saw the Prince of this world being cast out at His own death (John 12:31-33), and as a result of the ministry of His own disciples (Luke 10:17-19). Jesus taught them not to be afraid of the ones who can kill only the body, and He charged them to bravely lose their lives in order to gain the victory (Matt 10:26-39). Hence, John was simply following the teaching of his Lord when he depicted the casting out of Satan and his defeat through the deaths of the martyrs in Revelation 12:9-11.

Satan has two instruments with which he keeps humans in bondage and slavery. His first instrument is sin. The sins of people are Satan's "certificate of ownership." But this document was nailed to the cross of Calvary and was canceled by the death of Christ (Col 2:14-15). Satan's second instrument is the fear of dying (Heb 2:14-15). Again, by His own death, Jesus liberated His own from the fear of death. When the martyrs meet their death without fear, Satan's last instrument is rendered powerless, and he is crushed and defeated.

As the deceiver of the nations, Satan maintains their enslavement by keeping them in the darkness of his deception. When the martyrs cause the truth of God to shine brightly among the nations, those who were formerly in the bondage of darkness respond by turning back to God. The death of the martyrs opens the eyes of unbelievers, and when they see the light, Satan's power over them is gone. We have further proof of this reality in the Book of Revelation, where we see the knowledge of God coming to all the nations as a result of the deaths of the martyrs (Rev. 11:1-19; 14:1-12; 15:2-4). The martyrs are shown to defeat Satan by bringing all the nations to God through their witness and death.

The story of Job shows us another aspect of Satan's defeat by the faithfulness in suffering of God's people. Job's refusal to curse God demonstrated to the whole population of heaven that God had genuine worshipers on the earth, thus proving Satan wrong. The suffering of Job was watched by the hosts of heaven as an extraordinary spectacle. It appears that Paul had the experience of Job in mind when, speaking of the suffering of the apostles, he said that they "have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men" (1 Cor 4:9).

Writing from prison about his own ministry, Paul told the Ephesians that "the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places" now have the opportunity of knowing God's "manifold wisdom" as it is being manifested in the Church (Eph 3:10). Paul was talking about the same wisdom of God that he had earlier described in 1 Corinthians 1: 17-31. This is the wisdom of God which the world considers utter foolishness: that He sent His only Son to die on the cross. However, the manifestation of God's wisdom in this world did not end with Jesus on the cross; it is continued in His children when they obey God's commission to go into the world and to sacrifice themselves for the cause of Christ. As they conquer by dying, God's children demonstrate His wisdom to the whole cosmos. Moreover, by their witness and death, Satan is discredited and defeated.

Martyrdom and the Glory of God
Jesus described the outcome of His crucifixion as both His own glorification and as the glorification of God (John 12:27-32; 13:31-32). Yet death by crucifixion was one of the most shameful and barbaric modes of execution; how could that be considered an act glorifying to God? The answer becomes clear when one sees what that act has revealed to the world. In Christ's voluntary suffering for the salvation of mankind, the true nature of God was revealed. His essence was shown to be perfect love, utterly and unconditionally giving itself to others, even enduring pain and death for them. The glory of God shines through the beauty and splendor of self-sacrifice as nowhere else and, most importantly, this glory of God, the glory of His self-sacrificing love, shines out in each martyrdom. For this reason, John referred to the martyrdom of Peter as "the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God" (John 21:19, NIV). It was also the reason why Paul was so determined to glorify Christ by his own dying (Phil 1:20, NASB).

Martyrdom has the power of revealing the love of God to those in darkness. Herein lies its power to convince and to persuade: people see the love of God in the death of the martyr and are compelled to believe in God's love and sacrifice for them. Paul expressed the same idea in the concept of reflecting the image of Christ or the glory of God to other people through our suffering and our loving self-sacrifice for others (2 Cor 3:18; 4:1-15). As the knowledge of Christ and the grace of God is spread to more and more people through the sacrifice of the children of God, there is more and more thanksgiving, praise, and glory given to God.

Source:
http://www.missionfrontiers.org/1999/0304/articles/07f.htm

Recommended reading:
Romanian Josef Tson recounts God’s grace amid suffering, BPNews

Albert Mohler on Calvinism

2006-06-15T15:59:00.000+08:00

I was reading FIDE-O when I came across the article “Patterson, Mohler: Calvinism shouldn’t divide SBC” by the Baptist Press (BP), which is the daily national news service of Southern Baptists. Albert Mohler has made an excellent case for Calvinism’s strong impact on evangelism during the 2006 SBC Pastors' Conference, which was held on 11 and 12 June 2006. In a sense, all true believers affirm some, if not all, of the doctrines of Calvinism, whether they want to openly admit it or not.

"In your local church, when you send out an evangelism team, you don't say, 'Good luck,'" he said. "You pray that God will open hearts and open minds. When we listen to ourselves pray, we really do hear a strong confidence in the sovereignty of God."

" … The doctrine of election explains why we go with confidence to share the Gospel -- because God does call sinners to Himself, through the blood of Jesus Christ. "

"As the parable of the sower of the soil makes clear, we cannot read the human heart. We do not know who is the fertile heart and who is the resistant heart. … We just know there are sinners who need to hear the Gospel, and thus we preach the Gospel to all persons, knowing that God does save."

“Why do we go?” he asked. “We go because we honestly believe that whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. … God always blesses the preaching of the Gospel. And He does so because He is not a spectator, but He is the God who saves through the means of the Gospel.”

“The Lord’s will –- as the initiating will -– wills the human will to will what the Father wills,” he said. "… When Dr. Patterson shares the Gospel and when I share the Gospel, we do so honestly and urgently believing that if that person to whom we shared the Gospel of Christ responds in faith, she or he will be saved.”

"The question is, how is the atonement limited and by whom?" he said. "… I would prefer to speak of particular redemption. I do believe before the creation of the world God determined to save sinners -- and not just in a general sense, but in an actual sense, persons who would come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

"I feel no accountability to John Calvin. I feel an indebtedness to him, but I'm not accountable to him nor would I wish to wear his name, nor, I believe, would he wish anyone to wear his name,” Mohler said. “[Calvinism] is a categorization which I don't deny if you're talking about a strain of theology. But I am accountable to the Word of God and the Gospel of Christ. "

"It is not healthy to have a person who will drive across the state to debate Calvinism but won't even drive across the street to share the Gospel," he said.

Mohler listed the areas in which all Southern Baptists are “one form of Calvinists or another”:

A belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. "It is not by accident that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture," Mohler said. "… We really do believe that God can work in such a way that the human will wills to do what God wills that will to do. And that is exactly why we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. We do not believe that the Apostle Paul was irresistibly against his will drawn to write the Book of Romans.”

A belief in the substitutionary atonement. The logic of this doctrine fits only within “the umbrella of a Calvinist scheme.” "The entire worldview in which substitution makes sense is a worldview in which the sovereignty of God and the righteousness of God and the saving purpose of God are vindicated in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Affirming the "omniscience of God." "At the very least … God created this world knowing exactly who would come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ," Mohler said. "Some of us believe more than that, but certainly none of us here believes less than that.... If that be so then … the precise identity of all the persons who would come to faith in Christ was known by the Father before the world was created.”

A belief in the eternal security of the believer. "Once this work of salvation is accomplished in the life of a sinner, and that sinner is transformed by the grace and mercy of God, He can never fall away," he said.

Update 19 June 2006! A transcript of the exchange between Al Mohler and Paige Patterson can be found at this link.

The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version

2006-06-07T19:38:00.000+08:00

While I was at SKS Books Warehouse on 31st May getting Mark Driscoll’s book The Radical Reformission: Reaching Out without Selling Out, I have decided to purchase The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version too.

I was already thinking of getting this study Bible for quite some time. Now I am currently immersing and enjoying myself in reading this study Bible! Let me say that so far, I have found no complaints with this Bible at all even though I am skimming through quickly. It is absolutely fantastic, filled with excellent study notes from a Reformed/Calvinist perspective.

Like many others who bought the Reformation Study Bible before me, I do wholeheartedly recommend this Bible to those who seriously desire to engage in a systematic study of the Scriptures.

From the website of the Reformation Study Bible:

Post Tenebras Lux - "After darkness, light."

The Latin phrase found on the Reformation Wall in Geneva, Switzerland, encompasses the purpose of both The Geneva Bible and The Reformation Study Bible: to bring the light of Scripture to a darkened world.

In 1988, a group of publishers envisioned a Bible in the tradition of the original Geneva Bible with study notes from a reformed perspective. They requested Dr. R.C. Sproul to be the general editor. Energized by the idea, Dr. Sproul was in charge of assembling a team of international scholars who would be able to put together this resource.

In searching for a team of scholars, it was important that the study notes stay true to Reformed theology and thinking. An editorial committee was established and included Dr. James Montgomery Boice, Dr. Edmund Clowney, Dr. Roger Nicole, and Dr. J.I. Packer as associate editors, Dr. William Evans and Dr. John Mason as assistant editors, Dr. Bruce Waltke as the Old Testament editor, and Dr. Moises Silva as the New Testament editor. In addition, fifty other international scholars were chosen to work on each book of the Bible with the New International Version serving as their foundation. Once a book was completed, it was routed to the appropriate editor, passed to Dr. Sproul, the entire editorial committee, and then back to Dr. Sproul. It took three years before all of the preliminary study notes were finished.

In 1992, the decision was made to switch to the New King James Version under a new agreement with Thomas Nelson Publishers to carry on the project. Due to the change in translation, it took the scholars an additional three years to re-write all of the study notes to agree with the NKJV. In the process however, they were able to refine the notes and make them even more accessible to the layman. Finally, The New Geneva Study Bible was released in 1995.

In 1998, The New Geneva Study Bible was renamed The Reformation Study Bible. Now in 2005, we are pleased to announce the release of The Reformation Study Bible in the English Standard Version. The distinctive attribute of The Reformation Study Bible is not the Scripture translation. The content of explanatory notes and reformation theology found in this Bible greatly benefit the layperson trying to study Scripture. In this day and age, there is a constant assault on the integrity of Scripture, which has served to undermine people's confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible. The contributing scholars of The Reformation Study Bible have the highest academic credentials. Each is committed to the inerrancy of the Word of God and willingly submits to the authority of the Book they are trying to explain. In addition to the study notes, Dr. J.I. Packer includes more than one hundred sidebars on the core doctrines of the Christian faith.

The English language is only a small part of this continuing project. It is our hope that one day The Reformation Study Bible will be available to anyone in any language. "I believe that this is the most important project that I have ever been engaged in or involved with in my entire life." said Dr. Sproul. "It is my prayer that this Bible will be as useful to you as the original Geneva Bible was to our forefathers in the English-speaking world."

A Call to Reform Modern Worship

2006-06-05T14:07:00.000+08:00

In the secret, in the quiet place
In the stillness You are there
In the secret, in the quiet hour I wait only for You
'Cause I want to know You more

I want to know You
I want to hear Your voice
I want to know You more
I want to touch You
I want to see Your face
I want to know You more

I am reaching for the highest goal
That I might receive the prize
Pressing onward, pushing every hindrance aside, out of my way
'Cause I want to know You more

I absolutely hate this song, which is made popular by the Christian group Sonicflood. The title of this song is “In the Secret (I Want to Know You).” This must be one of the shallowest songs ever to be sung in churches. No mention of God, Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit. Even someone like Osama bin Laden would not have any problem singing this terrible song. Seriously.

There is an upcoming worship event at my church this Friday, in which I will be involved as a guitarist. A couple of worship bands will be there, leading the congregation into a time of worship. During the full-dress combined rehearsal that was held yesterday afternoon, I watched with mixed feelings the songs that were performed by another band. The song “In the Secret (I Want to Know You)” is being performed, along with a couple of Hillsong / PlanetShakers type heavy rock songs that I absolutely cannot worship to.

Tim of Challies.com comments of this song,

I was led to conclude that song really says nothing of great substance about God. As the Christian sings this song he pleads to know God more, to hear His voice and to see His face, yet all this time he probably has the Bible sitting on the pew beside him! As Carson says, after you have sung this song through a few times you are no farther ahead. This song will not help you know Him, hear Him, touch Him or see Him.

Yes I am aware that the typical charismatic answer is that you guys are worshiping God. But come on… You must seriously ask yourselves: are you worshiping worship or are you worshiping God through worship? Is the real reason you “worship” to go through a delirious, euphoric and emotional high experience?

Contrast many of these modern 21st century songs with the classical hymns and you would see a marked difference. Well, maybe we don’t need to look so far back. It was not too long ago many contemporary Christian songs, perhaps up to the mid-90s, tie lyrics to solid biblical theology. Please do not give me the response that it is a generation gap or a cultural issue. Regardless of the era we live in, I strongly believe worship must have solid biblical theology. Why it is that nowadays many lyrics are so superficial and bland?

John MacArthur provides the following reason:

Hymnology is tied to theology and where you have depth you have height. Where you have a shallow theology you have a shallow hymn knowledge. Where you have a superficial understanding of divine truth, you have superficial expression of it. But where you have a people who have come to grips of divine truth and who have grandiose and glorious thoughts about God produced by an understanding of the profound realities of divine truth, they're not content with a shallow expression.

We love the old hymns because they are profound. They have a certain poetic genius that reaches into the depths of our theology and gives it expression. We don't need to be seduced by a sort of a saloon melody. It's enough for us to sing great words, we don't need a mantra to induce an emotion. Our thoughts of truth and our thoughts of God catapult us into lofty hymns.

I am not asking to hold back our emotions during worship. Nor am I calling for all churches to sing only hymns or psalms. No, what I am asking is to return to a proper form of worship where God is glorified through songs with solid biblical theology. It is high time churches draw people through solid preaching of the Word rather than depend on shallow worshiptainment. If a church has a high view of the Scriptures and a passion for grounding Christians in sound doctrine, I believe its praise and worship would conform and reflect its stand.

...

Bob Kauflin has provided a couple of excellent pointers in his article How Do We Move Away From "Worshiptainment"?

The Problem of Religious Pluralism

2006-06-03T13:15:00.000+08:00

John Piper has written an extremely relevant message not long after the 11 September 2001 attacks, which reminds all of us of the importance of evangelism and showing love to our enemies. When people persecute us, we might fall into the extreme of letting our hatred and vengeance consumes us, leading us into demonizing these people. However, there is the other extreme, which is that of religious pluralism.

Living in a culturally and religiously pluralistic society like Singapore, we are bombarded with propaganda that all religions are essentially good. Evangelizing people of other faiths is frowned upon because of political correctness. We are told that all religions lead to God. Good works is the goal of all religions rather than the worship of the one and true living God.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not calling for intolerance, for intolerance is the unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in religious beliefs. Intolerance would only lead to religious persecution, which I am wholly against, no matter what religion you belong to. But is religious pluralism the answer?

The second greatest commandment in the Bible tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves. And pray tell me, what is the greatest gift of love that we can offer our neighbor? Is it material needs like food? Clothing? Money? Well, maybe these things might temporarily satisfy our neighbor’s wants, but our neighbor will never be fully satisfied with these temporal things.

John Piper made popular the saying, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.” Reverse this saying around and what do you get? We are most satisfied in God when God is most glorified in us.

There you have it. Full satisfaction can only be attained when we are able to worship and glorify God in spirit and in truth. Full satisfaction is found by walking with Jesus Christ. Health and wealth will not satisfy. Humanitarianism will not satisfy. Religious pluralism will not satisfy our neighbor. Religious pluralism is not love because we do not love our neighbor by withholding the truth from them. Religious pluralism wrongly makes false gods the way to everlasting joy.

In Psalm 16:11, we read, “In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.” It is only the gospel that satisfies. The truth is, our neighbor can only be completely satisfied when he or she repents and acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Thus, we should not deny our neighbor eternal life because of hate. And neither should we deny our neighbor eternal life by withholding the gospel of Jesus Christ in the name of religious pluralism.

Obstacles to the Eternal Life of Muslims

September 24, 2001

Paradoxically, hatred and tolerance are teaming up to take eternal life from Muslim people. Jesus said - and we say it with tears - "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). In other words, nominal Christians, devoted Muslims, pious Hindus, faithful Buddhists, orthodox Jews, devout animists, sincere agnostics, secular atheists - everyone who does not hold fast to Jesus Christ as the supremely valuable Son of God and Savior - will perish and not have eternal life. "He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life" (1 John 5:12).

Whatever obscures this message for Muslim people obstructs their way to eternal life. For them Christ is a prophet, but not the divine Son of God who said, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). For Muslims Jesus is not the Savior who died for their sins and said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Unless Muslims - and all others who deny Christ's deity - hear and embrace the good news that "the fullness of deity" dwells in Jesus (Colossians 2:9), they will be without eternal hope. This has always been true, but today things are different. Two seemingly opposite forces gather to block the gospel from Muslim minds.

First, there is the fire of hatred, fanned by the flames of September 11. Second, there is a twisted tolerance fed by the fear of man.

My son called me from Chicago to say that one of his Muslim friends had been beaten on the street. No reason. He just looked like one of "them." The spirit of revenge against Muslims in our nation these days is indiscriminate. Rage boils just beneath the surface. This is not the way of Christ. He calls his people to suffer for the sake of love, not seethe with the fire of hate. "Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly" (1 Peter 2:21-23).

Hatred from Christians keeps Muslims from seeing the superior worth of Jesus Christ. The spirit of revenge sends the false signal that Christ is not an all-sufficient, all-satisfying Savior. We justify our own little jihad, and seek our satisfaction by injuring the adversary. But true Christians treasure Jesus above vengeance, and do not rob Muslim people of truth and hope in this way. Christians would rather suffer to show the supreme worth of Christ. They crucify the craving of hate in their own hearts. They long for Muslims to see Jesus for who he really is. They know that eternal life is at stake - for both.

In reaction against indiscriminate hate there is now a stampede to pluralism and twisted tolerance. If Muslims are hated, then let us call ecumenical gatherings, and let us all praise the virtues of Islam, and the wisdom of Allah and the goodness of Mohammed. But let no one speak the intolerable and indispensable truth that Jesus is the only way to God.

Once upon a time tolerance was the power that kept lovers of competing faiths from killing each other. It was the principle that put freedom above forced conversion. It was rooted in the truth that coerced conviction is no conviction. But now the new twisted tolerance denies that there are any competing faiths; they only complement each other. It denounces not only the effort to force conversions, but the very idea that any conversion may be necessary for eternal life. It holds the conviction that no religious conviction should claim superiority over another.

When Muslims are protected from hate with this "tolerance," they are cut off from eternal life. And what promises deliverance proves to be death. If, in the name of this new tolerance, we are forbidden to say of Jesus, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12), then eternal life is concealed and we are cruel.

Therefore let us open the door of life for all Muslim people by renouncing hate, showing love, conquering fear, commending the King of the universe, Jesus Christ, and suffering willingly, if we must.

Praying with you for a stunning breakthrough,

John Piper

Source:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2001/092401.html

Defining Reformission by Mark Driscoll

2006-05-28T11:34:00.000+08:00

I have just came across this interesting quote by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA. while surfing the Christian blogosphere:

Reformission is a radical call to reform the church's traditionally flawed view of missions as something carried out in foreign lands and to focus instead on the urgent need in our own neighborhoods, which are filled with diverse cultures of Americans who desperately need the gospel of Jesus and life in his Church. Most significant, they need a gospel and a church who are faithful both to the scriptural texts and to the cultural contexts of America....What I am advocating is not an abandonment of missions across the globe but rather an emphasis on missions that begins across the street, like Jesus commanded (Acts 1:8)

- Mark Driscoll, The Radical Reformission

I wholeheartedly say a resounding AMEN to these words by Mark Driscoll. Too often, our idea of missions is to uproot ourselves, travel to a far-away distant land, experience a foreign culture and preach the gospel in a foreign language. I agree that missions is not something that is solely done in some remote countries, but should begin across the street. To put it in a local context, do we really need to go to Thailand to preach the gospel when we have plenty of unreached people in Singapore who never have the gospel preached to them? Not that I am against overseas missions, but I think we must adopt a balanced approach to missions at home and overseas.

After reading a couple of blog reviews, I think I would most probably be purchasing the book The Radical Reformission: Reaching Out without Selling Out, which appears to contain a number of interesting ideas. I thought the three formulas provided by Mark Driscoll conform pretty much to my perception of the Christian environment today:

Gospel + Culture - Church = Parachurch
Culture + Church - Gospel = Liberalism
Church + Gospel - Culture = Fundamentalism

According to Mark Driscoll, it is important that "(1) the gospel (loving our Lord), (2) the culture (loving our neighbour), and (3) the church (loving our brother)" works together to ensure success in our mission to the world.

On the second formula, I do have a special concern for churches and Christians that seek to be culturally relevant. While we might fall into the trap of sectarianism, where being so culturally irrelevant that you lose your mission, the trap of syncretism is just as real - being so culturally relevant that the message is lost. I see this happening particularly with Christian youth, where there is a danger of infusing too much entertainment and seeker-friendly sermons into the worship service that I am afraid the gospel is neglected – people are converted to the church or the pastor but not to Jesus.

Update! 1 June 2006: I have gone to SKS Books Warehouse yesterday to buy the book. It appears to be the last copy in the store.

A Rebuttal to an Open Theist Email

2006-05-26T13:52:00.000+08:00

A couple of months ago, I have come across an interesting, and I would say, an extremely hate-filled email, titled Frankie's Powerful Message, which attacks Calvinism. The curious thing about this email is that it is hosted on a Buddhist website in Singapore (Hmm … I wonder why it is so).

According to the email, the author is identified as Frankie Lee. And judging by his email address, Frankie is probably a Singaporean and it seems his beliefs are quite consistent with Open Theism. He denies the omniscience of God – that God has any foreknowledge of the future. For the most part of his email, he denounces the doctrines of Calvinism as the “Lies of Satan.” The email can be found at this link.

I have divided my rebuttal into the following sections:

On John Calvin and Michael Servetus
On Open Theism
On Irresistible Grace
On John Wesley’s View of John Calvin
On Augustine’s View of Astrology
On the Fall of Adam
On the Anthropomorphic View of God
On the Total Depravity of Man
On the Absolute Sovereignty of God
On God’s Sovereignty over Evil and Suffering

On John Calvin and Michael Servetus
Frankie Lee wrote,

Due to the deep rooted mindsets of Christians who were mostly influenced by Calvin's misleading doctrines, my teachings from Truths will shock and disillusioned many Christians. It is unthinkable that anyone will ever believe in the words of John Calvin, who was infamous for slandering God, blasphemies, and he actually burned a human being alive, and in order to satisfy his rage and hatred against Servetus, he asked for green wood to slowly torture him ....via slow- cook.Yet, his followers are aplenty.

It amazes me that many opponents of Calvinism have to resort to blaming John Calvin for the death of Michael Servetus, who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. This is an ad hominem fallacy, as it has absolutely nothing to do with refuting the theological doctrines of Calvinism.

Philip Schaff (1819-1893), author of History of the Christian Church, wrote,

From the standpoint of modern Christianity and civilization, the burning of Servetus admits of no justification. Even the most admiring biographers of Calvin lament and disapprove his conduct in this tragedy, which has spotted his fame and given to Servetus the glory of martyrdom.

But if we consider Calvin’s course in the light of the sixteenth century, we must come to the conclusion that he acted his part from a strict sense of duty and in harmony with the public law and dominant sentiment of his age, which justified the death penalty for heresy and blasphemy, and abhorred toleration as involving indifference to truth Even Servetus admitted the principle under which he suffered; for he said, that incorrigible obstinacy and malice deserved death before God and men.

Calvin’s prominence for intolerance was his misfortune. It was an error of judgment, but not of the heart, and must be excused, though it cannot be justified, by the spirit of his age.

Most contrary to Frankie Lee’s overly exaggerated statement “asked for green wood to slowly torture him ....via slow- cook,” Philip Schaff wrote,

In one respect [John Calvin] was in advance of his times, by recommending to the Council of Geneva, though in vain, a mitigation of punishment and the substitution of the sword for the stake.

It must also be noted John Calvin does not have any formal power in Geneva. Here is an excerpt from an article by Matthew Gross,

In considering these executions, is important to note that Calvin never held any formal power outside the Church during his time in Geneva. The government of the church in Geneva was Presbyterian ¬– it had a pastor and a consistory, or board of ruling elders. Contrary to popular portrayal, the government of the church was not the government of the city. … The consistory handled moral matters, and the maximum penalty it could impose was excommunication. … Calvin himself was not a citizen of Geneva during the upheaval in Geneva, and thus was disqualified from voting, holding public office, or even serving on the Council of Two Hundred until very late in his life, and at least four years after he achieved “the height of his power” to which so many Calvin detractors refer. Thus, it is with this understanding, the understanding that Calvin held no formal secular power, and that any power he did have was subject to the review of two different citizen’s councils...

And lastly, to sum it up, William Wileman has given an excellent concise summary of the facts in his article Calvin and Servetus:

That Servetus was guilty of blasphemy, of a kind and degree which is still punishable here in England by imprisonment.
That his sentence was in accordance with the spirit of the age.
That he had been sentenced to the same punishment by the Inquisition at Vienne.
That the sentence was pronounced by the Councils of Geneva, Calvin having no power either to condemn or to save him.
That Calvin and others visited the unhappy man in his last hours, treated him with much kindness, and did all they could to have the sentence mitigated.

On Open Theism
Frankie Lee wrote,

The scriptures revealed many accidents that happened to human beings, and it shock God and surprise Him but many professed-believers-and stickler- of- the -Word "refute" the Bible because they had find it hard to trust the Bible. While they claimed that they do not understand many mysteries of God, and were ignorant about many things about God, then why they comments on something that they have no knowledge of?

It is in this paragraph where Frankie Lee revealed his real theological leanings. His statement “many accidents that happened to human beings, and it shock God and surprise Him” exposes him as an Open Theist.

One of the heretical teachings of Open Theism states that God has no foreknowledge of human choices; that God can be shocked, surprised and can repent like we do. Now, unlike Open Theism, both Calvinists and Arminians do affirm the foreknowledge of God. John Piper compares the statements by John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius in his article Is the Glory of God at Stake in God's Foreknowledge of Human Choices?,

John Calvin wrote, "[God] foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place." And Jacobus Arminius wrote, "[God] has known from eternity which persons should believe . . . and which should persevere through subsequent grace." Denying God's foreknowledge of human choices has never been part of Christian orthodoxy.

Even John Wesley, whom Frankie Lee later described in his email as “the genuine servant of God,” affirmed the foreknowledge of God in his sermon on the doctrine of predestination.

The first point is, the foreknowledge of God. God foreknew those in every nation, those who would believe, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things. But, in order to throw light upon this dark question, it should be well observed, that when we speak of God's foreknowledge, we do not speak according to the nature of things, but after the manner of men. For, if we speak properly, there is no such thing as either foreknowledge or afterknowledge in God. All time, or rather all eternity, (for the children of men,) being present to him at once, he does not know one thing in one point of view from everlasting to everlasting. As all time, with everything that exists therein, is present with him at once, so he sees at once, whatever was is, or will be, to the end of time.

On Irresistible Grace
Frankie Lee wrote,

A lot of confusion stems from Calvin's definition of God, denigrating God and place God as "Sovereign", having "Foreknowledge", and "All Powerful", intruding into affairs of human beings, and "Overriding all human will", to the point of "Invasion of privacies", that had become" God's Will has become Irresistible".

Not only Frankie Lee denies the foreknowledge of God, he also denies the sovereign will of God. The question is – can anyone thwart the will of God? We find in the Scriptures that no one can.

I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. – Job 42:2

For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? – Isaiah 14:27

As God of all creation, it would seem preposterous to imply that God is not allowed to be “intruding into affairs of human beings.” Isn’t it clearly written in the Scriptures,

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. – Romans 11:36

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? – Romans 9:20-21

The question is, if God does not “override human will,” how could anyone willingly seek God? It is written that “no one who seeks God” (Romans 3:10-11); that the “man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them” (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is also written,

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. … No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. – John 6:37, 44

Because no man has the natural ability to choose God, it is solely up to the sovereign will of God to overcome the hardened hearts of men and to draw men to Him. And because the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 8:30 that those whom God calls, He also justifies, it is clear that the electing grace of God is irresistible.

On John Wesley’s View of John Calvin
Frankie Lee wrote,

"Nothing can happen chance, and there is no accident in God", with such ideas emanating from Calvin, obviously fooled the world, in his definitions and wrong views about the Bible. John Wesley, the genuine servant of God preached that Calvin was a Blasphemer. But Calvin was infamously known as a wicked human being, and a murderer. Some believe that he was an anti-Christ, a wolf in sheep clothing's in Christendom, and I find the latter is more accurate portrayal of Calvinism.

It is likely Frankie Lee received his information that “John Wesley … preached that Calvin was a Blasphemer” from the Wesley’s sermon on Free Grace in 1740,

This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination, a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, (call it election, reprobation, or what you please, for all comes to the same thing) one might say to our adversary, the devil, "Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer?

Now, John Wesley did not directly accuse John Calvin of being a blasphemer. It is important that we need to balance the above words of John Wesley with his other sermons. And here is an excerpt of another sermon that he later preached in 1770,

John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens. Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men; and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold absolute predestination; the latter, conditional.

One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? -- a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity.

What could have caused this change? Well, if one knows the history of Methodism, one would know that George Whitefield, a friend of John Wesley and the co-founder of Methodism, is a Calvinist. After Wesley’s sermon on Free Grace was published, George Whitefield wrote a letter to John Wesley in response to the Free Grace sermon. Here are a couple of excerpts,

But perhaps you may say, that Luther and Arndt were no Christians, at least very weak ones. I know you think meanly of Abraham, though he was eminently called the friend of God: and, I believe, also of David, the man after God's own heart. No wonder, therefore, that in a letter you sent me not long since, you should tell me that no Baptist or Presbyterian writer whom you have read knew anything of the liberties of Christ. What? Neither Bunyan, Henry, Flavel, Halyburton, nor any of the New England and Scots divines? See, dear Sir, what narrow-spiritedness and want of charity arise from your principles, and then do not cry out against election any more on account of its being "destructive of meekness and love."
…
How then, in holding this doctrine, do we join with modern unbelievers in making the Christian revelation unnecessary? No, dear Sir, you mistake. Infidels of all kinds are on your side of the question. Deists, Arians, and Socinians arraign God's sovereignty and stand up for universal redemption. I pray God that dear Mr. Wesley's sermon, as it has grieved the hearts of many of God's children, may not also strengthen the hands of many of his most avowed enemies!
…
I would hint further, that you unjustly charge the doctrine of reprobation with blasphemy, whereas the doctrine of universal redemption, as you set it forth, is really the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of his blood. Consider whether it be not rather blasphemy to say as you do, "Christ not only died for those that are saved, but also for those that perish."
…
Dear, dear Sir, O be not offended! For Christ's sake be not rash! Give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child; and then, instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late hymn book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead of talking of sinless perfection, as you have done in the preface to that hymn book, and making man's salvation to depend on his own free will, as you have in this sermon; you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign distinguishing love. You will caution believers against striving to work a perfection out of their own hearts, and print another sermon the reverse of this, and entitle it "Free Grace Indeed." Free, not because free to all; but free, because God may withhold or give it to whom and when he pleases.

On Augustine’s View of Astrology
Frankie Lee wrote,

Augustine, a worshipper of Mary, was an astrology who believed in the superstition about Stars in the sky. The practice of astrology is understood as abominations and affront to God, and even sorceries were rudely condemned. The idea of Predestinations was seem to have passed from him to Calvin, and that concept became the mindsets of our world, which gave us "Fate"," Once saved always saved", Omnipotent God, Sovereign God, and Almighty God.

History reveals to us Augustine rejected the practice of astrology in his work The Confessions,

By now I had also repudiated the lying divinations and impious absurdities of the astrologers. Let thy mercies, out of the depth of my soul, confess this to thee also, O my God. For thou, thou only (for who else is it who calls us back from the death of all errors except the Life which does not know how to die and the Wisdom which gives light to minds that need it, although it itself has no need of light--by which the whole universe is governed, even to the fluttering leaves of the trees?)--thou alone providedst also for my obstinacy with which I struggled against Vindicianus, a sagacious old man, and Nebridius, that remarkably talented young man. The former declared vehemently and the latter frequently--though with some reservation--that no art existed by which we foresee future things. But men's surmises have oftentimes the help of chance, and out of many things which they foretold some came to pass unawares to the predictors, who lighted on the truth by making so many guesses.

On the Fall of Adam
Frankie Lee wrote,

When God was surprised and shocked that Adam sinned, the Slanderer explained that God was in pretense of a shock, for God had foreknowledge and knew in advance of all events. An accident occurred in the Garden of Eden, but the Devil teaches that, in God there is no accident. Yet the Word told us that there was accidents, with the exceptional cases whereby, unless a Child love and obey God, all things will work for his own good as directed by Him.

What Frankie fails to understand is that God’s envisioning of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is contingent upon God’s foreknowledge of the Fall of Adam. If God has been “surprised and shocked” at the Fall of Adam, then it is quite out of the question that God has set apart the elect from the rest of the sinners before the creation of the world since He would not have anticipated any sinners in the first place. In other words, the foreknowledge of God is vital for salvation to work. For it is written,

For he chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love [God] predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will – Ephesians 1:4-5

On the Anthropomorphic View of God
Frankie Lee wrote,

God spoke that He regretted creating man, but Christendom cannot, would not, and refuse to believe in God's words, for they rather trust in the lies of an Evil-one than God, who spoke the Truths. Very few "Christians" believe in the innocence of God, for they rather believed that "He" is guilty, thus blaspheming God without being conscious about it. Up till this day, Christians still believed, and doubt God, and rather see that God surely must have participated in the fall of Man, presuming guilt on God the Creator, just like Eve who trusted the words of Serpent. Who have you place your confidence about your personal eternity, or with whom have you trusted for Eternity?

Frankie’s statement is a prime example of an Open Theist taking a particular anthropomorphic text of the Scriptures to a literal extreme that is not consistently supported by the rest of the Scriptures. By the rest of the Scriptures, I would mean the following,

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? I have received a command to bless; he has blessed, and I cannot change it. (Numbers 23:19-20)

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind. (1 Samuel 15:29)

As we can see, it is dangerous to interpret the divine nature of God using such anthropomorphic texts that seems to imply a limit to the omniscience of God. For example, in Genesis 3:9 where God is seeking Adam in the garden, God said, “Where are you?” If an Open Theist wishes to be consistent in his interpretations, he would have to suggest God has a poor knowledge of geography and that His range of vision is limited.

Furthermore, the Open Theist also shows a simplistic understanding of God’s emotional capacities, revealing his inability of reconciling two seemingly opposing emotions within the divine heart of God. However, if one is able to understand the difference between the divine will of decree and the divine will of command, one would be able see how God is able to, at the same time, desire one thing while decreeing another.

The most indubitable example of the two wills of God is found in the execution and death of Jesus Christ at the cross. While God, through His will of command, does not desire an innocent man to be executed, God, through His will of decree, declared that Jesus Christ should die to atone for the sins of the elect. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to conclude that God would have expressed regret or felt sorrow in His heart that Christ had to die. However this does not mean God, at any time, regretted His decision and would have changed His mind to send Christ to the cross.

On the Total Depravity of Man
Frankie Lee wrote,

Up till this day, the independent Will of man, of the Devil, and many human events and spiritual events which are uncontrolled by God, such Truths will never be accepted by Fundamental Leaders. Up till this day, the free moral Will of man, this teachings has never really sank in into the hearts of Christians, the implications and the significance about it. In real actual life, there is really a free moral will of human being, and of the Devil and of God, and even Angels.

The Scriptures clearly establish the moral inability of Man to freely choose God.

“Children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.” (John 1:13)
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:44)
“You did not choose me, but I chose you...” (John 15:16)
“There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.” (Romans 3:11)
“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

On the Absolute Sovereignty of God
Frankie Lee wrote,

God's will was not carried out in this world, and God was not in full control of this World, so Christians must obey God, to bring God's will into this world, to bring Him over here to control most of the things in this world, and Christians are to participate in praying that God's name be not blaspheme, and be kept Holy, from the Lord's Prayers.

Apparently, Frankie Lee thinks that God is not in control; that everything happens by chance. However, the Scriptures indicate that the Open Theist deviates from the correct understanding of God.

Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. - Isaiah 46:9-10

I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened I announced them to you so that you could not say, 'My idols did them; my wooden image and metal god ordained them.' - Isaiah 48:3,5

As we can see, these verses clearly state God knows the future. Not only has He known “what is still to come,” it is written “[God’s] purpose will stand.” It is astonishing that Open Theists would go as far as to imply the sovereign plan of God is subjected to chances and accidents. In other words, God is capable of making mistakes.

On God’s Sovereignty over Evil and Suffering
Frankie Lee wrote,

Obviously, it is accurate by statements and facts, and by reality, we can safely say that Satan is the source of all diseases, the troubles for humanity, and "responsible" for the death of human beings and caused all human sufferings. However, the Devil had the consenting Adults, and the cooperation of our Ancestors, and they sold human beings to bondage, so the problems existed mutually with man and cooperation with the Devils, leaving God out of the equations, so to speak.

The trouble with this sort of thinking is that the person forgets Satan is only one of God’s created creatures. To imagine that God is not in full control and the actions of Satan and humans are not under God’s sovereignty absolutely gives ourselves way too much credit and mocks the power of God. The Scriptures indicate of no such thing. Contrary to Frankie’s theory that “God [is] out of the equations,” or that God is not sovereign over suffering, the following verse refute his theory:

The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD? – Exodus 4:11

We can also observe in the Book of Job where God not only allowed Satan to harm Job, God claimed responsibility for the actions of Satan.

Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason." – Job 2:3

God is responsible for deaths, as we can see from this verse:

See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand. – Deuteronomy 32:39

For further reading on the sovereignty of God over evil, John Piper has written an excellent article Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be?

More resources:
Monergism.com on Open Theism
CARM on Open Theism
Open Theism: A Florida Baptist Witness Special Report
Articles on the Openness of God Debate

Bible College, Here I Come!

2006-05-17T19:32:00.000+08:00

Praise and thank God! I have just been accepted into a Bible college in Singapore. The letter of acceptance has arrived last week. This wonderful news is all due to God alone. However, some people do deserve mention, such as my family who has given me support, the excellent references from my church pastor, the church worship director and a long-time sister-in-Christ who is a Bible lecturer at another college.

I will be doing a full-time Masters of Divinity at a college which will remain unnamed for now. The duration of the programme is three years and would start this July. I pray that as I embark on this new journey in my life, God will instill in me humility, courage, perseverance and wisdom.

The Internet Monk: Working for God's Glory

2006-05-16T17:20:00.000+08:00

I thought the excerpt below that is taken from the fifth point of the Internet Monk's latest post How much is too much? is a pretty good response to some of the methods of postmodern / emergent / seeker-sensitive churches.

The post is pretty good and I would encourage readers to have a look at it. I love this phrase that the Internet Monk has written: "Newsflash to Bob Ross: Joel Osteen talking about about positive thinking for 30 minutes and then mentioning the Gospel (kinda) for 30 seconds isn’t a Christ-centered ministry. Duh."

The Glory of God means God is seen clearly, truthfully and Biblically. Keep that in mind when you say you’re doing whatever “for the glory of God.”

God isn’t glorified by everything we do. What we do is commanded to glorify him. Intentionally. That means God gets the big parts, most of the lines and nothing makes sense without him.

If God becomes a clown, a disembodied voice, a divine comedian, good feelings or a large stuffed animal, He’s not being glorified. God isn’t’ glorified just because I say that’s what I want to do. God isn’t glorified by what I think is cool. God is glorified when the cross and the mediator are seen clearly, exalted and magnified. That’s what he thinks is cool. (See the Gospel of John for details.)

Doing all kinds of nonsense “for the glory of God” is as big a cop-out as I know of. It’s juvenile. If the New Testament is about any one subject, it’s about how God is glorified in his Son and the Gospel of our salvation. Can we get that point, and can we understand that the Glory of God as our central theme is going to make a big difference. The reason some churches look and act like a cross between a pep rally and the opening of a new Wal-Mart is because what’s being glorified is US, our agendas and our desires. God is the one who “blesses” the whole mess and makes it all a “good witness.” Or so we say.

Listen, I’m not trying to stifle your creativity. I think we need to use the creative opportunities in our culture to communicate the Gospel, reach people, serve real needs, and bring a witness that is relevant and bold. But there are questions that have to be asked. There are pieces that have to be in place if it’s about Jesus and his Kingdom and not just about us. The Jesus-focused, God-glorifying, Gospel-communicating center and substance are not automatically just THERE just because we are sincere, creative, enthusiastic or spent a lot of money.

I’m not trying to lay some “only what Dr. Macarthur approves” trip on you. I’m not about a regulative principle that comes with a dress code, an approved book list, a Steve Green children’s CD and “Do It Like The Puritans!” bumper stickers. I don’t want to tell your drama team they can’t recreate the prodigal son or your youth group that they shouldn’t act like real teenagers.

I’m simply suggesting that there are questions to ask to determine if we are where we ought to be, doing what we ought to do in the way we ought to do it. It’s not complicated. It’s basic, and it takes the courage to go against the flow, staying in the mainstream of loyalty to Christ above all.

Source:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/how-much-is-too-much

An Article on Hillsong Church: The High Cost of Faith

2006-05-11T13:16:00.000+08:00

Before proceeding to the main article, readers might want to take a look at the interview with Geoff Bullock, the former worship pastor for Hillsong Church, in which he mentioned that he has rewritten some of the lyrics in his songs to make them doctrinally correct and in line with the teachings of the gospel.

Geoff Bullock said in the interview regarding the song Power of Your Love,

“A good example is ‘Lord I come to you, let my heart be changed, renewed’. Well, us going to God? When you just think of it naturally, I mean man going to God, that’s creation’s cry. All creation longs for communion with the Creator but we cannot go to God. The miracle of it is that it’s ‘Lord, you come to me’ so I now sing the song with ‘Lord, you come to me’. Instead of singing the prayer, ‘Hold me close’, it’s ‘You hold me close’. Just expressing it in that way...To say ‘Lord, hold me close’ is actually a misunderstanding of the Gospel. It’s sort of like saying ‘Oh Lord, have mercy’ - well, how much more mercy must He show? Or ‘Lord, forgive me’ - well, how much more forgiving can God get? I’ve become so aware of what God has done for me in having to apply grace to my journey rather than trying to prove myself worthy...It made me realise that there’s a whole culture of people pleading with God to do something that He’s already done. And when you turn around and realise the miracle - that He has done it - it turns life all the way around. It suddenly puts a value on you that you could never achieve in your own endeavour at all...”

The following is quite an interesting but pretty long article on Hillsong Church. A number of responses to the article by ex-Hillsong members can be found at the Signposts blog.

The High Cost of Faith
Published by News Limited, 29 April 2006, by Jennifer Sexton.

As crowds - and their cash - flood into Hillsong Church, former members tell Jennifer Sexton about the heavy price they paid for leaving the flock.

Whoa! I wanna know you, I wanna know you today.” With that catchy lyric, the lead singer rips into a punky-pop riff on his electric guitar as the band and side-stage choir spring to life. Over a sea of raised arms, five cameras capture the action as the audience, in time with the lanky, tousle-haired lead singer, belts out a thundering chorus: “You’re the best thing that has happened to me.”

No, this isn’t MTV live. It’s Hillsong Church, part religious service, part rock concert, part multi-media conglomerate. Every weekend at Hillsong churches in Sydney 19,000 people sing, clap and jump through a two-hour tribute to a God who rocks. As traditional religious congregations shrink, Hillsong attendance expanded more than 13 per cent in 2004.

There are no images of Jesus being tortured on the cross at Hillsong headquarters in Sydney’s Baulkham Hills, no vaulted ceilings. The audience sits not on wooden pews but on 3500 cushioned theatre seats. Under each one is an envelope and credit card form for believers to donate their pre-tax 10 per cent salary tithe. Ushers flood the aisles and pass black buckets down each row. The buckets have holes in the bottom, presumably to discourage parish-ioners from giving coins. And the rivers of cash keep flowing: donations and salary tithes to Hillsong were $15.3 million in 2004; merchandise, CDs, books and DVDs, returned a further $6.93 million, while total church revenue has now passed the $50 million mark - all tax-free thanks to Hillsong’s charitable status. And then there are the donations - it’s anybody’s guess how much - from the owners of the $40 million Gloria Jean’s coffee empire, Nabi Saleh and Peter Irvine, who are both senior members of Hillsong, the former as treasurer. The message of Hillsong’s prosperity gospel is: the richer you are, the more you can help others.

But along with the expanding congregation and profit margins have come the ugly rumours that won’t go away - of underhanded treatment of disaffected church members, of attempts to silence critics, of profiteering from the faithful. Only last month, the Labor Mayor of Blacktown in Sydney’s west, Leo Kelly, accused Hillsong of attempting to pressure him, via an ALP state official, to dampen his criticism of their use of public funds.

Hillsong’s main benevolent arm, Hillsong Emerge Ltd, has been accused in federal and NSW parliament of misappropriating commonwealth grants worth millions of dollars. And a former member, Robert John Orehek, was charged with fraud after allegedly fleecing believers of up to $20 million, which he sank into failed and fraudulent property investments.

THE KING OF HILLSONG EVANGELISM, Brian Houston, bounds onto the stage, clad in a dapper suit. “The faithful are in church tonight,” he declares, surveying the auditorium. “Awesome!” The background music fades away and the house lights brighten. People reach into their bags for Bibles and notebooks. Houston savours a silent pause. He’s been thinking about the seven deadly sins. “What would be my deadly sins, destructive in the lives of people?” Avarice, gluttony and wrath are apparently old hat. Houston instead says the sins are negativity, regret, complacency. Just a few weeks later, Hillsong’s formidable marketing arm has swung into action, releasing a four-CD set of Houston’s teaching on the sins that undermine potential in people, retailing for $35 in the church shop.

Houston has become the most influential pastor in the Pentecostal movement, and is a household name to born-again Australians. He also has political pulling power: Prime Minister John Howard, Treasurer Peter Costello and former NSW premier Bob Carr have all addressed the Hillsong congregation in recent years. In the last federal election, Hillsong member Liberal Louise Markus narrowly snatched from Labor the seat of Greenway, next to Hillsong’s Baulkham Hills church.

After the service - there are 30 every week in the two main Sydney venues, Baulkham Hills and Waterloo - people pour into the Hillsong shop. Half of the back display is devoted to the CDs and books by Houston and his perky wife of 28 years, Bobbie. Their bright white teeth and perfect hair seem to shine down from dozens of book and CD covers. In Bobbie’s CD set She Loves and Values her Sexuality she proclaims, “You might be happy with your weight but is your husband happy with your weight? … How are you going to do anything that might surprise your man when you need a hydraulic crane just to turn over in bed?” Boob jobs and face lifts get the thumbs up, as do good sex and a husband who says sorry with an impromptu spending spree at the jewellers. It’s a feel-good message, and when it doesn’t feel good, money makes it better.

GEOFF BULLOCK KNOWS ALL about Hillsong’s brand power and merchandising. He helped build it, even coming up with the name Hillsong more than 17 years ago. He launched the church on the international Christian music scene when he wrote most of the original songs, such as Power of Your Love, Refresh My Heart and Have Faith in God. For the church’s first decade he was Brian Houston’s best friend. For eight years, until a messy split in 1995, he ran the music department, nerve centre of “the brand”. Although his songs are now rarely played at Hillsong, they are popular on the international Christian music scene and Bullock lives off composition royalties paid through APRA (the Australasian Performing Rights Association).

When I meet Bullock at a sunny, beachside terrace cafe he is edgy and constantly apologises - for knocking the table as he crosses his legs, for being unable to eat much of his salad. A short, tidy man with intense blue eyes, he is approaching his 50th birthday. He hasn’t slept much in anticipation of revealing the backstage story behind the “miles of smiles” at Hillsong. “It was very nice being at the top of the tree but it just … ” He pauses, swallows. “This is going to sound dramatic. They stole my soul.”

Bullock’s moment of religious revelation struck in 1978 at Sydney’s Koala Motor Inn, where Houston’s father, Frank, was preaching. Bullock was 23 and had been touring the east coast in a rock’n'roll band, smoking dope and reading Carlos Castaneda’s stories of magic and sorcery. “It was wild,” he recalls of that November night. They sang hymns to a funked-up polka tune played with live piano, drums and bass. In the latest fashion blue safari suit, at the centre of the throng was the bespectacled 56-year-old preacher, Frank Houston, who declared that he used to smoke cigarettes before Jesus saved him. “People were trying to put cigarettes in his mouth,” says Bullock. “He lay down and he spat them out. It was a show of great confidence and charisma.”

Bullock was a needy, naive Sydney North Shore lad, schooled at the Presbyterian Knox Grammar. He believed in a higher being and was willing to try anything to reach Him, including cannabis. “I was absolutely ready for brainwashing. I was absolutely ripe for ‘love bombing’.” So, just two hours after walking into his first evangelical experience, Bullock answered God’s call, and his 21-year-old Anglican girlfriend from Lithgow in country NSW, Janine, followed. Individually, in back rooms, they were counselled. They had been born again and were now committed to Jesus. Satan would fight to get them back, they were warned. “I went in with a confident world view and I came out quite rattled. My whole belief structure had been turned on its head.”

He said goodbye to his rock’n'roll band, Arnhem, and to smoking, drinking and playing the occasional gig in topless bars in Sydney. A church leader came to his house and threw out his extensive collection of music - Joni Mitchell, Pink Floyd, The Beatles. “I had this wonderful group of friends, a great lifestyle, going listening to bands. All of that was viewed as being ‘of the devil’ … I didn’t lose some friends, I lost all my friends.”

Five years later, when 29-year-old Brian Houston set up his own church, Hills Christian Life Centre, in the newly suburban northern hills of outer Sydney, Bullock was a founding member. Young Houston was inspired by Tony Packard, who established a high–profile Holden car dealership in the area at Baulkham Hills with the catchcry “Let me do it right for you”.

Bullock was among the 70 believers at Pastor Brian Houston’s first service on Sunday, August 14, 1983, at Baulkham Hills Public School. From here a Pentecostal phenomenon called Hillsong was born. Bullock sang, played piano and was music frontman on stage for at least three services every Sunday. He recorded the church’s first six albums, three of which went gold, one platinum. He also ran the Bible college curriculum. For this he earned no more than $45,000 a year from the church and gave back a pre-tax tithe of 10 per cent, even when he couldn’t pay his growing family’s bills. Now he is being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder after being expunged from the church he helped build.

Bullock and Janine married in 1980 and had five children within a decade. At the height of his Christian stardom in the late 1980s to mid-1990s, Bullock toured the United States, Britain, Asia and New Zealand with an expanding repertoire of songs. For Sydney Sunday services they rose at 6am to set up the band and audio equipment and then rehearse ahead of morning, afternoon and evening church services. He was too busy to notice he was failing as a husband and father. “We had to put our parenting on hold,” he says.

Bullock began to feel like a real estate agent selling a manufactured ideal of God rather than one he really believed in. “I think Hillsong’s still got it, this feeling that God smiles a bit more when we’re singing our songs, and we’ve got good hairdressers, dentists, cosmetic surgeons. I came to think that the patron saint of Hillsong was Gianni Versace.”

Christmas Eve 1994 was the end for Bullock. He had rehearsed the choir and band to play the standard church repertoire for three Christmas services. Just hours before the first service, Houston discovered Bullock had not rehearsed traditional Christmas carols. “He just tore me to shreds and then left me to do three services,” Bullock says. Houston got his Christmas carols that night, but it finished his partnership with Bullock.

Once Bullock departed, a campaign of whispering about his morality and sexuality filtered throughout the church. When he broke up with Janine a few months later, his subsequent relationship with a married woman (whom he later married) was, he says, twisted to become the reason he had been forced out. At the same time, Houston preached about dark forces intent on undermining the church. “They ran a huge campaign to discredit me,” fumes Bullock.

Janine says she changed her phone number to stop friends from the church calling to tell her Bullock’s departure and their marriage break-up was against God’s will. She once hid in the wardrobe when a woman visited her house a second time. “I couldn’t bear her preaching at me again, telling me that this wasn’t of God.”

Janine still goes to Hillsong once a month, but says she can’t help but be cynical about the facade of spirituality compared with the lack of compassion and understanding she experienced. But, she adds, “there’s some beautiful Christian people who attend there”.

GEOFF BULLOCK ISN’T THE ONLY FOUNDING member of Hillsong to question its methods and ethics. For a decade until 1991, Stephen Grant was paid $100 a week to preach at Hillsong and was dean of the church’s Bible college. He admits that, as an eccentric, he was a strange fit for a fundamentalist church.

Still, Grant came from a wealthy family - he now runs a successful art gallery in Sydney’s Redfern - and had pledged (but never paid) $150,000 to the church’s building fund. He had a beautiful wife and was entertaining at the pulpit. He wore loud, colourful suits and sometimes a red leotard. When he blew on the congregation, the entire room of people would fall over.

But he realised his views diverged from Houston’s when they travelled together to the US in 1988. “In the US, I saw the wholesale commercialisation of born-again Christianity. I went, ‘Nah, truth is becoming a commodity here. It’s not a question of internal search, it’s a question of external commodification.’” But Houston liked what he saw and soon Hillsong’s fundraising became increasingly glitzy.

“I started to question what the bloody hell I was doing,” Grant, 46, reflects. “I was preaching all over the world. But I was getting really depressed.” He had lost both his parents and his marriage was under pressure. Grant subsequently discovered that, in the inner sanctum of the church, his wife was being encouraged to recognise that he did not belong.

His clinical depression was seen by the church as a sign of faltering faith. “I knew there was nothing wrong with my faith, and yet I was told: ‘You are not believing in Jesus enough.’” The Hillsong website backs up Grant’s claim. “Depression,” it declares, “is a supernatural spirit straight from the devil.”

When Grant broke up with his wife and left the church, like Bullock, he had to start life all over again, outside the Hillsong fortress. “People find a lot of healing in the church. I don’t have a problem with that. But … if you are kicked out, you are f—ed.”

The Christian message of the shepherd seeking lambs lost from the flock doesn’t apply at Hillsong, says Grant. “It was forbidden for me to be visited by the members of the church. Damn the lost lambs.” His recovery took five years.

The sentiment is echoed by theology student Penny Davis, who took years to rebuild her self-esteem after a shattering experience at Hillsong, which began in 1995 when she was just 20. Women who don’t fit Bobbie Houston’s mould at Hillsong, or those brave enough to challenge the male hierarchy, are swiftly brought into line, she says. With ambitions to become a pastor, Davis quickly realised she needed to change her wardrobe. “To get anywhere, you had to become a clone,” she quips. “I grew my hair, started wearing make-up and doing all the nice girly things.”

Life became very full, and it was all about church. She moved into a share house with four other young women from Hillsong, volunteered two days a week at church and did paid work with the Hillsong community youth centre three days a week, earning a weekly income of $600, less the 10 per cent salary tithe. “The pressure at Hills to be glamorous and have everything as well - it’s quite difficult on a low income.”

Just months after joining, she slept with a woman from the church - one who later confided about the liaison to a youth leader. Davis was immediately counselled that homosexuality was a sin. “I was just so vulnerable,” Davis says simply. She was assigned a mentor, who claimed she had successfully corrected her own “dysfunctional” sexuality. They spoke at least once a week, when Davis had to confess any lesbian fantasies. The mentor also read Davis’s diaries. After the “problem” persisted, she was put into an 18-week “ex-gay” program called Living Waters, then conducted at Hillsong. Once a week she attended the Living Waters group sessions, where she was told to focus on problems in her past which may have triggered her sexual “dysfunction”. “I was committed to getting these things fixed,” Davis says.

Three years of counselling, sessions with a psychiatrist and group therapies failed, however. Davis resorted to grabbing joyful glances at a video of Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras while her flatmates were out, she laughs. “I started to subconsciously realise that this was not going to change … the shame and guilt were eating me up inside.”

Davis decided her sexuality and spirituality could never be reconciled at Hillsong and made the momentous decision to leave. In response, her Hillsong friends sent a barrage of text messages quoting the Bible on the “sin” of homosexuality. She was kicked out of her house and then her friends froze her out, ignoring her emails and phone calls. “She’s gone, we have restructured, there’s no need to continue communicating with her” was the message sent to her Hillsong friends by church leaders, claims Davis.

Social worker Tanya Levin, who spent her teenage years at Hillsong, says that those who question church policy are first shouted down and later ostracised if they persist. Levin has been commissioned to write a book about growing up in an evangelical church. For research, Levin attended the annual Hillsong women’s conference Colour Your World last March and took offence when poor children in Africa were being marketed for sponsors in the audience on the basis of being cute. “They are actually for life, not just for Christmas,” Levin shouted before walking out of the auditorium.

When she wrote an email the next month to the Houstons asking to meet them on a regular basis in order to gather material for her book, she got this curt response from the general manager, George Aghajanian: “We are aware that during your attendance at our recent Colour Your World Women’s Conference you caused a significant disruption. It is for this reason that we ask you to refrain from attending any future Hillsong church services or events; including accessing Hillsong’s land and premises at any time.” Aghajanian closed by saying the church’s leadership and staff were unable to provide assistance for the book.

When Levin subsequently attended a Sunday evening service, a pastor asked to speak to her outside. When she attempted to get back in to retrieve her bag, two security guards blocked her path, picked her up by the elbows and escorted her off the premises.

Brian Houston refused numerous opportunities to comment for this story, except to say: “More than 19,000 people come to Hillsong Church every weekend and I know that the overwhelming majority of them would testify to a healthy experience for both themselves and their families. They would also speak of the constant positive impact they see on others who are being helped through Hillsong Church and its many community programs.”

There is no doubt that Hillsong - or, closer to the mark, its loyal parishioners - perform many good deeds. The church has a number of charitable arms, including Mercy Ministries, a residence for girls dealing with unplanned pregnancies and eating disorders established five years ago by Hillsong’s Darlene Zschech, the country’s most popular and successful Christian singer. Although recently mired in controversy, the church’s main benevolent arm, Hillsong Emerge, has helped people find jobs and recover from addictions. Hillsong attendees sponsor about 2600 children in Uganda, and generously gave $500,000 to victims of the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami.

But the criticism seems likely to persist as long as Hillsong makes $50 million in revenue, pays no tax and yet spends just $2.67 million on “welfare services”. It is not clear how much Mercy Ministries gets from Hillsong, but its total donations were just $304,840 in 2004. And Hillsong Emerge’s 2004 accounts show it got only $646,666 from the Hillsong Foundation Trust and about that again in government grants.

And Houston has been less than transparent about his own income. Until last year he had failed to declare that he and Bobbie had sold their own personal property holdings to a Hillsong-related entity of which he is a director, Leadership Ministries Incorporated. Bobbie sold a Bondi beachfront apartment on the same block as Jamie Packer’s pad to the not-for-profit LMI for $650,000 in February 2002. The couple also sold a waterfront property on the Hawkesbury River in October 2004 to LMI for $780,000, making $535,000 on their 1998 purchase price. They continue to use both these properties.

LMI is the tax-free entity Hillsong set up as a vehicle to pay the couple’s income. In breach of Office of Fair Trading reporting rules, no financial statements had been lodged since its inception in October 2001. Only after the property deals were uncovered by The Australian were the accounts filed in August last year. When the numbers came in they revealed the golden couple got a measly net income, after donations, of just $21,658 in the year to December 2002, $12,739 in 2003 and $69,041 in 2004.

If this is all there is, then how do the couple and two of their three children pull off a property buying spree worth $1.738 million over 12 months in exclusive beachside Bondi? On August 26, 2003, son Joel, who is a lead singer in the Hillsong band and earns song-writing royalties, bought a $676,000 apartment a few minutes’ walk from the LMI-owned apartment, paying $276,000 up front. That same day Brian and Bobbie paid $650,000 with a collateral mortgage for the apartment next door to Joel’s. Exactly a year later, son Ben borrowed just $90,000 to buy a $412,000 apartment a few streets from the other family holdings.

And questions persist about why it took 30 years for Brian Houston’s father, Frank, to be exposed over a complaint of sexual abuse of a boy in his homeland of New Zealand. Houston says his father was banned from preaching in 2000, when he confessed. But Frank continued to live on the Hillsong account, in church digs, until his death in November 2004.

Houston has hiring and firing rights over the board, and has appointed some influential and rich men to control the church’s empire (there are no women, he says, because one of the board members won’t allow it). The general manager of Hillsong - psychologist George Aghajanian - now oversees a $100 million property portfolio. And Hillsong has its sights on lucrative new markets in Europe - it opened a church in Paris last year and already has churches in London and Kiev.

Geoff Bullock says he can’t help but admire Houston. “He works hard and is gifted. He deserves to be a wealthy man.” But when told how little Houston is claiming as net income Bullock is incredulous - especially knowing the charismatic pastor’s fondness for Valentino suits and first-class plane tickets. And then there are the thousands of dollars in “love offerings” Houston regularly personally pockets for every talk he gives on the international Pentecostal speaking circuit. “Why not just be open about it?” Bullock asks.

As Bullock watches the church lurch from one controversy to the next, he has a sense of foreboding. He muses there is a valid expectation that the church should pour more money into helping others and less into promoting itself and amassing wealth. “In the end, it’s just sad,” he says, looking into his coffee cup. “It does look like it’s approaching a train wreck.”

Jennifer Sexton is a senior writer on The Australian.

Source:
http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/05/04/high-cost-of-faith/

Highly Questionable Methods by Robert Reymond

2006-05-08T14:41:00.000+08:00

The problem in our day, which gives rise to highly questionable church growth methods, is twofold:

On the one hand, we are seeing a waning confidence in the message of the gospel. Even the evangelical church shows signs of losing confidence in the convincing and converting power of the gospel message. That is why increasing numbers of churches prefer sermons on family life and psychological health. We are being overtaken by what Os Guinness calls the managerial and therapeutic revolutions. The winning message, it seems, is the one that helps people to solve their temporal problems, improves their self-esteem and makes them feel good about themselves. In such a cultural climate, preaching on the law, sin and repentance, and the cross has all but disappeared, even in evangelical churches. The church has become "user friendly," "consumer oriented," and as a result evangelical churches are being inundated with "cheap grace" (Bonhoeffer). Today's "gospel" is all too often a gospel without cost, without repentance, without commitment, without discipleship, and thus "another gospel" and accordingly no gospel at all, all traceable to the fact that this is how too many people today have come to believe that the church must be grown.

On the other hand, we are seeing a waning confidence in preaching as the means by which the gospel is to be spread. As a result, preaching is giving way in evangelical churches to multimedia presentations, drama, dance, "sharing times," sermonettes, and "how to" devotionals. Preaching is being viewed increasingly as outdated and ineffective. Business techniques like telemarketing are now popular with the church growth movement. Churches so infected also look to the multiplication of programs to effect their growth. They sponsor conferences and seminars on every conceivable topic under the sun; they subdivide their congregations down into marrieds and singles, single parents and divorced, "thirty-something" and "twenty-something," teens, unemployed, the child-abused and the chemically dependent, attempting to arrange programs for them all. And once a person joins such a church, conventional wisdom has it, the church and the minister must meet his every felt need. Accordingly, ministers have become managers, facilitators, and motivators — everything but heralds of the whole counsel of God—and this all because they have lost confidence in the preaching of God's Word as the primary means for the growth of the church and the individual Christian.

What is the answer? A restored confidence in the Reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God in salvation!

— Robert L. Reymond, in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

Source: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/questions/questionable.html

Wacky videos of Benny Hinn... and much much more

2006-04-26T17:21:00.000+08:00

I have blogged about Benny Hinn before, so veteran readers would know I have an extremely low opinion of that man. For those who are not fully convinced about that man’s character, let me present some great wacky Godstuff videos from The Daily Show of the antics of infamous “pastor” Benny Hinn. Those of you who have already regard him as a heretic and a fraud, just relax, sit back and enjoy.

As Benny Hinn is tied to the Word-Faith movement, which teaches unbiblical health and wealth doctrines, readers might also want to take a look at these videos, which shows other word-faith preachers promoting the prosperity gospel:

The following video features some pretty strange behaviors:

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/godstuff/godstuff042.wmv

And of course, we mustn’t forget the recent phenomenon that once and probably still making waves in the charismatic movement – the “holy” laughter:

Update! More videos of Benny Hinn, courtesy of YouTube:

Benny Hinn examined (A must-watch documentary)
Corruption of Benny Hinn
Benny Hinn rampage
Benny Hinn Meets Benny Hill
Marjoe Gortner Exposes Fake Preachers (not exactly on Hinn, but a must-watch)

Sermonaudio.com contains a number of excellent mp3 sermons on Benny Hinn:

The Babblings & Blasphemies of Benny Hinn by Rev. Reginald Cranston
Benny Hinn On The Heresy Bandwagon! by Rev. Ian Brown
Benny Hinn's Doctrines of Devils by The Heart of the Matter
Benny Hinn - true or false? by Rev. Colin Mercer
Tattle Tailing on the Truth Twisters by Evangelist Greg Locke

Arminian Puppies

2006-04-25T01:46:00.000+08:00

One day the local Arminian Methodist minister was walking through the small town he pastored in. as he walked by one house he looked over the picket fence and saw a little boy with a dog that was nursing some newborn pups.

The Methodist minister asked “What kind of pups are they son?” The little boy replied “These pups here are Arminian pups.” The Methodist minister chuckled and went back to his office at the church.

A week later the Methodist minister saw the local Presbyterian minister in the local deli. Remembering the little boy’s comments about the pups, he thought he would have a little fun. He told the Presbyterian minister that he had something he wanted him to see and led him down the street to the little boy's home.

The ministers came to the house and there was the little boy in the yard with his pups. The Methodist minister with a big grin told the Presbyterian minister to ask the boy what kind of pups they were.

The Presbyterian mininster asked “Young man what kind of pups do you have there?”

The little boy answered, “Why these here are Calvinist pups.”

The Methodist minister quickly jumped in “But son you told me last week they were Arminian pups.”

The boy replied “Well yes sir, they were, but that was before their eyes were open.”

-- A joke from Puritanboard

Defending Sola Scriptura

2006-04-17T16:13:00.000+08:00

Where in the Bible is the principle or concept of Sola Scriptura (By Scripture alone) espoused?

To answer this question, I believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura must be defined first. I would define it to mean the Scriptures, the sixty-six canonical books of the Bible, are the only authoritative and infallible rule for the Christian faith. The Scriptures reveal all that is necessary for salvation. No other revelation outside the Scriptures is necessary for the Church. The Scriptures are the sole and supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and the authority of the Church, which includes its traditions, confessions and creeds, is subordinate to the Word of God.

What the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not: it is not a claim that the Scriptures contain all knowledge of human wisdom. It does not reject traditions, confessions and creeds; it means that any tradition, creed or confession must be tested through the Word of God. It is not a claim that the Scriptures record every single exhaustive detail of religious knowledge, for instance, an account of every thing that Jesus Christ has ever done on earth. It does not deny the authority of the Church to teach divine truths; that the Church has the duty to uphold divine truths found within the Word of God, while remaining subservient to the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura was one of the five important doctrines in the 16th century Protestant Reformation, along with Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus and Soli deo Gloria. Even today, the divide between Protestants and Roman Catholics still exist, with the Vatican maintaining the infallible authority of its traditions, councils and the Pope.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read:

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

While Roman Catholicism contains many extra-biblical doctrines such as purgatory, the sacramental system, the immaculate conception and bodily assumption of Mary, the veneration of graven images, papal primacy and infallibility, and transubstantiation etc, many proponents of the Charismatic Movement hold in high regard extra-biblical revelations such as dreams, visions, and spectacular prophecies.

Here are two examples of outrageous extra-biblical revelations from two prominent personalities in the Charismatic Movement, Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland:

Adam allegedly flew into space
“Adam was a super-being when God created him. I don't know whether people know this, but he was the first superman that really ever lived. First of all, the Scriptures declare clearly that he had dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea--which means he used to fly. Of course, how can he have dominion over the birds and not be able to do what they do? The word 'dominion' in the Hebrew clearly declares that if you have dominion over a subject, that you do everything that subject does. In other words, that subject, if it does something you cannot do, you don't have dominion over it. 1'll prove it further. Adam not only flew, he flew to space. He was--with one thought he would be on the moon.” – Benny Hinn (“Praise the Lord” program on TBN, 26 December 1991)
Jesus was allegedly raped by Roman soldiers
“Let me tell you something folks. Anybody in here that's ever been sexually abused, listen to me right now. Listen to me very carefully. The bible's very careful about the way it says these things. But down there in that dungeon, Romans, ungodly men, ungodly men, put him (Jesus) to every kind of abuse that you can think of. There is no sin that Jesus didn't bare. There is no thing, there is no such thing as a sexual abuse on somebody that Jesus doesn't know firsthand what it's all about. He's been where you are, I don't care what you've been through, Jesus has been through it. And everything's done to him that we couldn't even speak of.” – Kenneth Copeland (The Resurrection Truth)

The above cited excerpts show us how far these men deviate from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is even more saddening that many Christians would defend these men and often times falsely accused discerning Christians of hypocritical judgments and causing unnecessary divisions.

However, I believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which was once and still used to defend the essentials of the Christian faith against Roman Catholicism, has to be firmly defended against extreme proponents of the Charismatic movement, especially those of the word-faith movement, who advocates special extra-biblical revelations apart from the Scriptures.

For if the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is compromised, it will lead to a denial of the rest of the Solas, which would eventually destroy the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can observe throughout the history of the Christian Church, there are many false prophets who claim that the teachings of the Bible are abrogated by introducing some “holy” books or teachings. These false teachings pervert the gospel, most often denying the Trinity and the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

DEFENDING SOLA SCRIPTURA FROM THE SCRIPTURES

I have highlighted only three passages of Scripture that can be used. Obviously, these are not the only passages available to defend Sola Scriptura.

2 Timothy 3:14-17
This is one of the classic passages often cited in most Protestant apologetics:

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” – 2 Timothy 3:14-17 NIV

Here are some points to be noted:

“…from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation…” The apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, asserting that the Scriptures are able to make Timothy “wise for salvation.” There is no mention of traditions or extra-biblical revelations that is required for one to be saved.
Even though the holy Scriptures mentioned in this epistle speaks only of the Old Testament, the key point of this passage is about the nature and ability of the Scriptures, not the extent of the Scriptural canon. This is an important point to note as Roman Catholic apologists would argue that any reference to the Scriptures would only apply to the Old Testament, not to the New Testament.

Both sides of the debate, Protestants and Roman Catholics, do agree that the New Testament without question is “God-breathed.” Therefore, if this is the case, it is absolutely irrelevant whether or not the apostle was referring to the Old Testament or the New Testament, since the New Testament, by virtue of it being “God-breathed,” is sufficient for salvation.

As the saying goes, “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” The gospel of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament is in the form of shadows and types that prefigures Christ, which eventually finds its fulfillment in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic argument, therefore, demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the relationship between the testaments.
The apostle referred to the origin of the Scriptures, hence the word “God-breathed.” It is the Scriptures, not the writers themselves that are “God-breathed.” Because the Scriptures originate from God Himself, the authority of the Scriptures is God’s authority. The authority of the Church is derived from the divine Scriptures themselves, and not the other way round.

Some Roman Catholic apologists may argue that the Protestants must rely on Roman Catholic traditions to know which books ought to be included in the canon of Scripture. This presumptuous argument denies the special guidance and providence of God, who worked with His covenant people over time to recognize and collect His inspired written Word, both Old and New Testaments.

The inspiration of the Scriptures is divine, not ecclesiastical. The Church did not give authority to the canon, but rather it recognized its authority. Hence, the canon of Scripture stands or falls because of its relationship to God, not to the Church.
“…the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The King James translation renders this sentence as “that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” The Greek word for “perfect” is artios, which may be also translated to mean “complete” while the Greek word for “thoroughly furnished” is exartizo, which means to “furnish perfectly.”

So what is the implication of this? It means that no one serving God has to search about for other divine sources. The Christian is furnished perfectly by the Scriptures alone. It is the Scriptures alone that are sufficient for every need in ministry. If there is a doctrine that is required for the Church, we should be able to find it in the Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 4:6

“Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.” – 1 Corinthians 4:6 NIV

The New American Standard translation renders the sentence “Do not go beyond what is written” as “learn not to exceed what is written.” The Greek word for “exceed” is huper, which may be translated as “over, beyond, more than,” while the Greek word for “written” is grapho, which means “to write, with reference to the contents of the writing.”

The apostle Paul was, of course, referring to the Old Testament writings. However, as we have noted from the above explanation of 2 Timothy 3:14-17, the issue is not about the extent of the Scriptural canon, but rather about the nature and ability of the Scriptures.

The background behind this verse is found in 1 Corinthians 3. Divisions were formed in the Corinthian church. Some were following Paul; some were following Apollos; some were following Peter. The point the apostle Paul was making is that the Scriptures did not teach us to be a follower of Paul, Apollos or Peter, but rather to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

The apostle Paul made it quite clear that the Scriptures alone are the limiting factor by which we must bind our conscience. We are not to appeal to any extra-biblical teachings or traditions that go beyond the Scriptures and exalt any one else other than Christ. Thus, 1 Corinthians 4:6 clearly supports the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in verity.

Acts 17:11-12

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.” – Acts 17:11-12 NIV

Once again, Roman Catholic apologists may argue that the Scriptures in question were the Old Testament, not the New Testament. However, as I have demonstrated earlier, this is quite beside the point.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is clearly established in this text. The apostle Paul preached the gospel to the Bereans. And how, may we ask, did the apostle preach the gospel? We would find our answer in Acts 17:2-3 where he preached to the Thessalonians,

“As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said.” – Acts 17:2-3 NIV

Over here, we can see that it was the custom of the apostle Paul to preach the gospel to the Jews by reasoning from the written word of God. If the apostle had to rely on extra-biblical teachings not found in the Scriptures, it would be hard to imagine that the apostle would have gain any Jewish converts at all, like what we see in Acts 17:4. After all, for the 1st century practicing Jews, the Scriptures, the Old Testament, were regarded as the only authoritative rule of faith.

It is therefore reasonable to deduce the manner in which the apostle Paul preached the gospel to the Bereans is similar to the way he did it to the Thessalonians. The apostle preached the gospel to the Bereans by reasoning from the Scriptures according to his custom. The Bereans then went back to the same Scriptures the apostle preached from, and examined them “every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

I must warn that Roman Catholic apologists may try to use a common misleading argument, countering that the apostle Paul was using “oral traditions” to preach the gospel to the Bereans. However, upon closer examination of Acts 17 as shown above, it is unmistakable that the gospel was preached by reasoning from the Scriptures alone.

REFUTING COMMON ROMAN CATHOLIC SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS

Here are three passages of Scripture commonly used against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
This is a favorite verse of Roman Catholic apologists.

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” – 2 Thessalonians 2:15 NIV

The Greek word for “teachings” is paradosis and may be translated as “traditions.” Roman Catholic apologists would interpret this passage as referring to oral traditions.

At first glance, it appears oral traditions, that are teachings by word of mouth, are indeed found in the early church. However, we must ask, is the traditions the apostle Paul was writing about the same as the oral traditions of the Roman Catholic Church? Was the apostle writing about the immaculate conception of Mary and papal infallibility? This cannot be conclusively proven.

Secondly, when appealing to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Roman Catholic apologists make an assumption that both written traditions and oral traditions are somehow different. This also cannot be proven, which leads to my third point.

Thirdly, and more importantly, is there any indication in the passage that part of the tradition comes orally and part of the tradition comes in writing? That in order to receive the entire teachings of the gospel, both oral and written traditions must be together? Roman Catholic apologists would maintain that unless you possess the oral tradition, you do not possess the entire Word of God.

Upon closer examination of the passage, this is a logical fallacy as the apostle did not write “hold on to the written tradition and to the oral tradition.” What he wrote is “hold on to the tradition whether you heard them orally or in writing.” When you compare these two statements, you would notice they are distinctly different in meaning. In the early days of the church and even today, the gospel message is communicated either through pulpit preaching or through the Scriptures. So logically speaking, there is no suggestion from the apostle that both oral and written traditions must be kept together in order to possess the entire gospel.

2 Thessalonians 3:6

“In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:6 NIV

Again, the apostle Paul used the same Greek word paradosis for the word “teaching,” which may be translated as “traditions.” The points that I covered in my explanation of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 may also be used for this passage.

I would also direct the Roman Catholic apologist to understand the entire context of 2 Thessalonians, pointing him back to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to understand what the apostle meant by tradition. In this passage, it is rather interesting that the apostle did not subdivide apostolic traditions into written traditions and oral traditions. This suggest there is only one body of traditions, which is either communicated orally or in written form.

2 Peter 1:20-21

“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” – 2 Peter 1:20-21 NIV

A casual reading of the first part of the passage sounds as though we are commanded not to privately interpret the Word of God. Roman Catholic apologists would use this verse to claim that only the Roman Catholic Church has the right to “public” interpretation. However, a closer examination of this passage indicates this is not so. Therefore, it is important that we read this passage in context.

Earlier in the epistle, the apostle Peter defended himself and the rest of the apostles in verse 16, stressing that they “did not follow cleverly invented stories,” but “were eyewitnesses” of Jesus Christ. He goes on to write in verse 19, “we have the word of the prophets made more certain.” Basically, the apostle was demonstrating that Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament scriptures.

Once we understand the context of the passage, we would realize that the apostle was writing about how the Scriptures came into existence, not how they are to be interpreted. The Scriptures has its origin through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not through the private will of men.

John G. Paton on Missions

2006-03-29T10:35:00.000+08:00

Let me record my immovable conviction that this is the noblest service in which any human being, can spend or be spent; and that, if God gave me back my life to be lived over again, I would without one quiver of hesitation lay it on the altar to Christ, that He might use it as before in similar ministries of love, especially amongst those who have never yet heard the Name of Jesus. Nothing that has been endured, and nothing that can now befall me, makes me tremble - on the contrary, I deeply rejoice – when I breathe the prayer that it may please the blessed Lord to turn the hearts of all my children to the Mission Field and that He may open up their way and make it their pride and joy to live and die in carrying Jesus and His Gospel into the heart of the Heathen World!

John G. Paton, Presbyterian missionary to the South Sea Islands (1824-1907)

Source:
"You Will Be Eaten by Cannibals!" Courage in the Cause of World Missions, John Piper

Thoughts on Cultural Moralism

2006-03-23T11:37:00.000+08:00

I was having a fruitful discussion with Benjamin and Thopro after the Agora meeting on Tuesday night. One issue that came up was the relevancy of Christians in society. Perhaps, through my blog, I am able to articulate my views more clearly. So Benjamin and Thopro, if you guys are reading this, here are some of my thoughts. :-)

The question is, if we Christians want to be relevant, should we publicly speak out against moral issues such as casinos, homosexuality and abortions? Should Christians band together with non-Christians to address moral needs? How about movies such as Brokeback Mountain that promotes sodomy and adultery and cartoons that satirize religions? Do we join hands with heathens and pagans to call for public ban on immoral vices?

For my position on this matter, I would be in full agreement with John MacArthur, who has delivered an excellent sermon, The Deadly Dangers of Moralism, which explains his view on cultural moralism.

My chief concern with cultural moralism is that it puts the cart before the horse. Sanctification is treated first before justification. The fruit of the Spirit is preached without communicating the essentials of the gospel i.e. the fundamental nature of God, the total depravity of all men, repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross etc. Thus, the gospel is devalued in favor of moralism.

John MacArthur aptly puts it this way:

This cultural morality reverses the divine order. It reverses the divine order. That is, it makes morality the power for salvation. The idea is if we can get a more moral America, then more people are going to believe the gospel. If we can clean up the country, that will give greater opportunity for the gospel. That's really a reverse of the divine order. Morality is not the power for salvation. Salvation is the power for morality, right? So if we want to change the nation, what do we need to be working on? The gospel.

Lest I am misconstrued as being apathetic to social injustices and the moral needs of society, let me assure my readers that this is not the case.

So does Christians need to assume their roles to moralise society? Sure we do. However, I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only agent of change by which we are able to do so. To moralise society without preaching the gospel is to assume that morality can be achieved without the work of the Holy Spirit. That is, of course, biblically untrue. And as we all know, we cooperate with the Holy Spirit in progressive sanctification. Progressive sanctification cannot be achieved on our own.

It is quite probable that some Christians, in their attempts to moralise society, hope to lure non-Christians into the church by promoting moralistic virtues. Even though their actions are well intentioned, unfortunately however, this is based on the unbiblical notion that man has the moral ability to seek God (Romans 3:10-11). Men do not come to God because of their wants for morality but through the preaching of the gospel. As ambassadors for Christ, I believe it is our duty to proclaim the message of the gospel, and allow the Holy Spirit to convict and convert the hearts of sinners to draw them to Christ. Cultural morality as a carrot undermines the call of the gospel and makes us no different from proponents of the seeker-sensitive movement who adopts various unbiblical methods to entice people into the church.

Another concern of mine is the yoking of Christians with non-Christians. It is written,

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. – 2 Corinthians 6:14-16

The trouble with these unholy alliances is that Christians become obligated to create out-of-bound markers, which discourage them from preaching the gospel to their non-Christian moral co-workers. Since Christians and non-Christians has decided to join hands together to address moral issues, any attempts to preach the gospel would create friction and discord in these already fragile alliances.

What’s more, participating in interreligious prayers and meetings clearly runs contrary to the Scriptures. Like what the Apostle Paul wrote, what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? The apostle wrote,

The sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. – 1 Corinthians 10:20

If Christians are not to publicly voice out condemnations against immoral vices, then how do we regulate spiritual morality? I believe the Word of God has clearly prescribed a biblical way to do it, and that is through the ordination of elders, the leaders of the church.

Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. – 1 Peter 5:2-3

And as far as I can tell from the Word of God, only from within the Body of Christ are moral issues to be addressed, not outside the Body of Christ. Elders are to be shepherds of their flock, which is the sheep. If there is any public condemnation of immoral vices, it should be done with regard to the well being of the sheep, not of the goats or of the wolves.

At any rate, I dislike the politicization of moral issues in the name of Christianity. It implies that the Body of Christ is ill equipped to discipline its members on moral issues, and have to turn to the secular authorities for help. This runs contrary to the teaching found in the following passage, that judgments should be confined among the saints.

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? – 1 Corinthians 6:1-5

In conclusion, I do believe that we Christians must be relevant to society. However, our approach to society must be based on the gospel of Jesus Christ and nothing else. We are called to make disciples of Jesus Christ, not to moralise the world. Morality is the fruit of salvation, not its end. For any real moral change to happen, it must happen through the work of the Holy Spirit who works through our prayers and the proclamation of the gospel. Thus, the call for morality must never be divorced from the call of the gospel.

C. H. Spurgeon on Calvinism (4)

2006-03-16T19:00:00.000+08:00

"Oh!" saith the Arminian, "men may be saved if they will." We reply, "My dear sir, we all believe that; but it is just the "if they will" that is the difficulty. We assert that no man will come to Christ unless he be drawn; nay, we do not assert it, but Christ himself declares it--"Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;' and as long as that "ye will not come' stands on record in Holy Scripture, we shall not be brought to believe in any doctrine of the freedom of the human will." It is strange how people, when talking about free-will, talk of things which they do not at all understand.

"Now," says one, "I believe men can be saved if they will." My dear sir, that is not the question at all. The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful. supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ. You reply, that men sometimes are willing, without the help of the Holy Spirit. I answer--Did you ever meet with any person who was?... "

- C.H. Spurgeon, Human Inability

A comparison of Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism

2006-03-07T14:30:00.000+08:00

I thought the following excerpt from the article What Hath Geneva To Do with Nashville? by Thomas K. Ascol does contains a succinct and accurate comparison of Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism.

In one sense, hyper-Calvinism, like Arminianism, is a rationalistic perversion of true Calvinism. Whereas Arminianism destroys the sovereignty of God, hyper-Calvinism destroys the responsibility of man. The irony is that both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism start from the same, erroneous rationalistic presupposition: Man's ability and responsibility are coextensive. That is, they must match up exactly or else it is irrational. If a man is to be held responsible for something, then he must have the ability to do it. On the other hand, if a man does not have the ability to perform it, he cannot be obligated to do it.

The Arminian looks at this premise and says, "Agreed! We know that all men are held responsible to repent and believe the gospel [which is true, according to the Bible]; therefore we must conclude that all men have the ability in themselves to repent and believe [which is false, according to the Bible]." Thus, Arminians teach that unconverted people have within themselves the spiritual ability to repent and believe.

The hyper-Calvinist takes the same premise (that man's ability and responsibility are coextensive) and says, "Agreed! We know that, in and of themselves, all men are without spiritual ability to repent and believe [which is true, according to the Bible]; therefore we must conclude that unconverted people are not under obligation to repent and believe the gospel [which is false, according to the Bible]."

In contrast to both of these, the Calvinist looks at the premise and says, "Wrong! While it looks reasonable, it is not biblical. The Bible teaches both that fallen man is without spiritual ability and that he is obligated to repent and believe. Only by the powerful, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is man given the ability to fulfill his duty to repent and believe." And though this may seem unreasonable to rationalistic minds, there is no contradiction, and it is precisely the position the Bible teaches.

On a related note, I am aware that the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRC) are often times accused of being hyper-Calvinists. This is an excerpt from David J. Engelsma’s article Is Denial of the "Well-Meant Offer" Hyper-Calvinism? that responds to the charge of hyper-Calvinism.

The PRC [Protestant Reformed Churches in America] do not deny that the gospel is to be preached to all men, or that the preaching includes a call to all hearers without exception, to repent and believe on Jesus Who is presented in the gospel, or that the promise of God, that every one who does believe shall be saved, must be declared to all.
…
Restriction of the preaching, and particularly of the gospel-call, to those who give evidence of election by their regeneration is a real hyper-Calvinism. It is disobedience to the command that God gives the church in Matthew 22:9: "Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, call to the marriage." It is exposed as erroneous by verse 14 of Matthew 22, "Many are called, but few are chosen." The objection of the PRC to the offer is not at all that the offer requires that the gospel be preached to all, or that the offer insists that all be called to believe on Christ. But the objection is that the offer holds that this preaching and calling are grace to all.
…
God does not call all men alike. God calls the elect, through the preaching, with the life-giving, converting, and irresistibly drawing Spirit in their hearts, whereas He calls the reprobate only with the external Word. He calls the elect out of grace, the grace with which He chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world, whereas He calls the reprobate in divine righteousness, requiring of them their duty, namely, repentance and faith.

Song: Receive the Glory by Bob Kauflin

2006-03-02T12:10:00.000+08:00

I have discovered this excellent God-centered and Christ-exalting worship song through Bob Kauflin's blog, WorshipMatters. He has graciously made available a full MP3 free download of the song for us to listen.

Receive the Glory
by Bob Kauflin
© 2004 Sovereign Grace Praise (BMI)

Not to us, but to Your name alone
Be all the glory, the glory, forever
For Your faithfulness and steadfast love
Receive the glory, the glory belongs to You

All that we’ve accomplished You have done for us
And any fruit we harvest is a gift from Your hand
We are only jars of clay that hold a priceless treasure
And we exist to bring You pleasure, O God

Only by Your mercy can we come to You
Though we deserved Your judgment You have called us by name
So we glory in the cross of Christ that made us Yours forever
That joined our lives together to sing

Kauflin wrote,

This was a song I wrote for the weekend my senior pastor C.J. Mahaney turned the church over to our present senior pastor, Joshua Harris. Based on Psalm 115 and a few other Scriptures, it was my attempt to express what has always been CJ's heart - to give all glory to the Savior. This is from the recent Worship God Live CD, produced by Sovereign Grace Ministries.

Listen to the full MP3 of "Receive the Glory" by Bob Kauflin. File size: 5.72 MB.

The Bob Kauflin Hymns Project and Passion Worship Band's Hymns Ancient and Modern

2006-02-28T18:30:00.000+08:00

I have recently purchased the CDs Upward: The Bob Kauflin Hymns Project and Passion Worship Band’s Hymns Ancient and Modern. The Bob Kauflin Hymns Project was released in 2003, while Hymns Ancient and Modern was released in 2004.

If the name Bob Kauflin sounds familiar to you, he is the worship leader behind the worship CD Chosen Treasure, one of my favorite worship albums that was released in the early 1990s. Chosen Treasure has given us a couple of memorable worship songs, such as How Great Is Your Love (How High And How Wide), We Give Thanks, and Thank You For The Cross, which are still being sung in churches today. Bob Kauflin is also the director of worship development for Sovereign Grace Ministries, a family of Reformed Charismatic churches.

Both CDs attempt to remake the hymns using contemporary arrangements. While Passion Worship Band chose mostly familiar hymns, the hymns chosen by Bob Kauflin tends to be a little off the beaten path.

Perhaps I am getting old or something, but I thought Hymns Ancient and Modern is rather so-so, while I immensely enjoy The Bob Kauflin Hymns Project. I have heard Passion Worship Band’s typical style of worship many times, and I do feel a tinge of disappointment that the hymns are set to similar “heavy” arrangements found in their older live worship CDs such as Better Is One Day. I am not saying that Hymns Ancient and Modern is no good or I do not enjoy the CD, but I guess my expectation of Passion Worship Band is higher after hearing The Bob Kauflin Hymns Project.

The style of worship by Passion Worship Band gravitates towards heavy bass, electric guitar and synthesizers coupled with a live atmosphere, while Bob Kaulfin concentrates more on creative acoustic arrangements, in which I can appreciate the tight vocals supported by the acoustic guitar, piano and percussive instruments. My favorite song in The Bob Kauflin Hymns Project is Mercies Anew, which I thought it would be great as a special item.

If you like “quiet” and “relaxing” worship albums like Lenny LeBlanc’s Above All, John Chisum’s Firm Foundation and Martin Nystrom’s In Christ Alone, you would probably love The Bob Kauflin Hymns Project.

You can preview the music from The Bob Kauflin Hymns Project, as well as download free lead sheets and chord charts at the Sovereign Grace Ministries website.

An unpleasant encounter with an anonymous visitor

2006-02-25T16:47:00.000+08:00

There was recently an anonymous visitor to this blog, henceforth referred to as AV, who is under the obstinate delusion that I do not believe in divine healing. I was seriously contemplating whether I should continue the argument with this fellow who, despite my attempts to reason with him, denounces me as someone who comes close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

AV’s comments can be found in the comments section of the article Refutation of City Harvest's "Divine Healing" Article (Part 1).

AV revealed that he is from Marine Parade Christian Centre. In addition, he has made some unfounded accusations and fantastic claims:

He attacked my character and disparaged my sincere intentions to reveal the theological errors present within the divine healing article by Kong Hee.
He accused me of not being grounded in the Word of God. He has also stated in his own words, “You are merely selective in taking passages out of context and ignored reality... You are the one who lacks knowledge.” However, he has not cited any examples to back up his accusations.
He has quoted Bible verses out of context, which I have addressed and refuted in my responses.
He cursed me i.e. “Cursed be your self-righteousness!”
His remarks were extremely impolite i.e. “Young man… Stop practising armchair Christianity…”
He claimed to possess first-hand accounts and witnesses of divine healing. But when probed further, he was unable or unwilling to provide further details and proofs. Instead, he dodged my question and accused me of denying divine healing.
He refused to give himself an alias to make our discussion less awkward.
He flattered himself by saying “So, you cannot stand to my scrutiny already?” despite me taking pains in addressing his accusations.
He has not, at any time, address the points that I have brought up in the parent article on divine healing.

Through this unpleasant encounter with AV, I do feel a certain empathy with James R. White, in his recent email exchange with Ergun Caner. Now I confess I am far from being as gifted as White in his exegetical Biblical arguments, but I do get an inkling of the frustration he felt when his opponent is unable or incapable of seeing reason and debating rationally.

While White has invited Caner to a public debate, I have invited AV to present his supporting evidence in detail, which he has refused to do so. Instead, he has resorted to challenging me to go to word-faith churches, as if that would address the main issue of concern – the absence of medical evidence for divine healing. And by the way, I have attended more than my fair share of “healing” rallies when I was in the charismatic movement.

I would like to reiterate once again that I believe in the sovereignty of God in healing. However, like any discerning Christian (or any theistic-minded and rational person for that matter), I do not simply accept any claims of divine healing without clear medical proofs or believe in anybody who waves the Bible around, purporting to be a healer.

Strong claims of miraculous healings require factual backing. Even Jesus, after healing the lepers in Matthew 8:1-4 and Luke 17:11-19, asked them to show themselves to the priest, to prove that they were actually healed. Therefore, I do not think I am being unreasonable in demanding medical proofs for verification. Attacking my faith is also irrelevant since my faith is in Christ, not in some alleged healing miracles or faith healers.

Anyone can easily invoke the name of God to lend a semblance of authority to his “ministry.” Like this guy “John of God” for example, who claimed to be possessed by the spirits of deceased doctors. Or the alleged healings at Lourdes that supposedly cured blindness, cancer, paralysis and tuberculosis. Or even Haitian voodoo healing, which mixed Roman Catholicism with African primitive religions. Would their gods be real then, since there are many claims of miraculous healings?

Megachurches 'shallow in theology'

2006-02-22T08:33:00.000+08:00

Do not just simply take my word for it, but hear it from the head of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in the following news report published today.

Megachurches 'shallow in theology'
From correspondents in Porto Alegre, Brazil
Reuters
22 February, 2006

THE head of the World Council of Churches has expressed concern about the spread of megachurches around the world, such as Hillsong in Sydney, saying they could lead to a Christianity that is "two miles long and one inch deep".

The WCC General Secretary Samuel Kobia said megachurches - huge Protestant churches with charismatic pastors, lively music and other services - mostly ran on a business model to make worshippers feel good and were shallow in their theology.

Megachurches, which pack in thousands for rousing Sunday worship services, are popular in suburbs in the United States. Most are evangelical or Pentecostal, with few or no ties to mainline churches such as the Lutherans or Episcopalians.

Mr Kobia said the megachurch movement, which is not represented in the mostly mainline Protestant or Orthodox World Council of Churches, broke down borders among denominations with a populist message.

"It has no depth, in most cases, theologically speaking, and has no appeal for any commitment," the Kenyan Methodist said at the WCC world assembly in this Brazilian city.

The megachurches simply wanted individuals to feel good about themselves, he said.

"It's a church being organised on corporate logic. That can be quite dangerous if we are not very careful, because this may become a Christianity which I describe as 'two miles long and one inch deep'."

Reverend Geoff Tunnicliffe, international director of the 400 million member World Evangelical Alliance, said at the assembly that "historical and deeply-felt issues" separated them from other branches of Christianity.

The largest US megachurches attract some 20,000 worshippers every Sunday. Abroad, megachurches have also sprouted up in Australia, South Korea, Britain, Canada, and other countries.

According to a report by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, there were 1210 US churches drawing more than 2000 worshipers, the official minimum for a megachurch. That was double the number in 2000.

The WCC groups nearly 350 Protestant and Orthodox churches that mostly broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in the Great Schism of 1054 or in the 16th century Reformation.

Source:
Megachurches 'shallow in theology', NEWS.com.au

This obvious observation might explain the survey conducted last year that reveals the majority of American Christian teens are theologically shallow, which I suspect holds true for Christians in many countries as well.

Study: Christian Teens Theologically Shallow
By AFA Journal
April 28, 2005

(AgapePress) - Results from a recent survey conducted by a North Carolina researcher reveal that the majority of America's youth believe in God, yet there is a shallowness in their religious knowledge, and they have difficulty expressing their faith.

Christian Smith, a sociologist at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led 133 researchers and consultants in conducting a project that involved telephone surveys of 3,370 English- and Spanish-speaking Americans and face-to-face interviews with 267 of the participants -- all ages 13 to 17. Protracted funding will allow the researchers to track these young people through 2007.

Thus far, telephone surveys reveal that young people have a broad fondness for religion, although their religious knowledge is labeled as "meager, nebulous and often fallacious" as found through the personal interview portion of the study.

In other words, teens were unable to coherently express their beliefs and the impact of faith on their lives. In addition, many participants appeared so separated from the traditions of their faith that they viewed God as a feel-good problem solver who merely existed for that purpose. There were no indications of an absolute, truth-based theology among the teens.

"God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist who is available when needed," Smith wrote in his new book titled Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, co-authored with Melinda Lundquist Denton.

Smith credits parental tendencies of Baby Boomers, poor educational and youth programs, and responsibilities and activities that vie for teenagers' time as reasons for their skewed view of the Almighty.

Source:
Study: Christian Teens Theologically Shallow, American Family Association

You could probably deny the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and they would barely raise their eyebrows. But once you criticize the deviant teachings of their favorite pastors, you are denounced as "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" as if their pastors are God Himself. Talk about a cult-like mentality.

This current state of affairs is nothing worth gloating over, but something that I find rather appalling. I think part of the blame lies in the post-modernism mindset, where methodology usurps the rightful place of theology. Thus, the gospel is watered-down in order to be seeker-sensitive.

Who cares if the evangelistic methods aren’t theologically sound, so long as they are able to woo people to church? As long as I feel “good” and the teachings meet MY needs, why bother? Don’t preach to me the “heavy” stuff as my mind cannot take the strain. Hurry up and give me the fast-food equivalent of Bible study.

Did you say Christianity is a religion? No no no… Christianity is a RELATIONSHIP. God is LOVE, therefore everything we do in love must be right, RIGHT? The God of the Old Testament is not the same as God of the New Testament. My pastor says this … my pastor says that ... Everything my pastor says MUST be true. How DARE you cast doubts on my pastor's teachings? My church is much MUCH bigger than your church, so it means that my pastor is right. You are just jealous of my BIG BIG church.

Maybe it's just me. But if I am increasingly getting this kind of reaction from many postmodern Christians who cannot even articulate the gospel as shown in the above AFA Journal article, then perhaps we may have to seriously consider readjusting our view of missions and evangelism.

Report: Christians websites are attracting many from the Muslim world

2006-02-16T16:06:00.000+08:00

Let us praise God and rejoice that the gospel of Jesus Christ is steadily making inroads among the Muslims.

Christians websites are attracting many from the Muslim world

February 16, 2006

While hard-line Muslim nations make accessing Christians websites difficult, it's not impossible and these websites are making an incredible impact for the kingdom.

Strategic Resource Group (SRG) helps organizations reach out to the lost inside the 10/40 Window. SRG reports Christian websites are receiving nearly 9 million hits per month from the Middle East. One Christian organization hosting chat rooms for Arabic-speaking web users estimates that more than 42,000 people visit those sites daily.

About 2,000 Arabic language Bibles are downloaded from the Internet each month. One organization estimates that 20 people per month are giving their hearts to Christ as a result of learning about the Christian faith on these websites.

Although some Islamic governments try to block these websites, the Internet generally knows no borders. More than half of the population in the Middle East is 25 years old or younger, and many of these young people own computers or have access to them. This technology has connected people together through e-mail groups, networks, blogs and chat rooms.

Christian organizations are seizing the Internet opportunity to create communities of people who can openly talk about faith issues in a safe environment. In the greater Middle East, the Internet represents a crucial growth sector for communicating the Christian message in Arabic, Farsi and regional languages.

Source:
http://www.mnnonline.org/article/8313, Mission Network News

Sprinkling vs Immersion: A Baptism Joke

2006-02-14T20:12:00.001+08:00

(I saw this joke at The Puritanboard forum )

Two long time friends were walking in the cool of the morning discussing the mode of baptism. Both had graduated seminary at the same time, moved to the same town, and each started their ministries there: One a baptist - the other a presbyterian (Go figure...)

Let's listen in to their conversation:

Presbyterian: So let me get this straight...you believe a person isn't baptized unless they have been fully immersed in water - is that correct?

Baptist: Correct. We believe in full immersion - not pouring or sprinkling.

Presbyterian: So if you walked a person into a stream up to their ankles that wouldn't consist in an actual baptism?

Baptist: No sir, no baptism.

Presbyterian: What if you got them wet up past their knees?

Baptist: Still not good enough.

Presbyterian: What about if they waded in to their waist? Would you pronounce them baptized?

Baptist: No, no, no...what about immersion do you not understand?

Presbyterian: Please forgive me, I am slow sometimes...I really do want to understand you and I thank you for your patience. Just a couple of more questions and I'll move onto other edifying topics. What if they were immersed up to their chest?

Baptist: No.

Presbyterian: Neck?

Baptist: No.

Presbyterian: What if they walked all the way in, held their breath, and were up to their eyeballs in water?

Baptist: No, they have to be immersed.

Presbyterian: I think I understand now...You and I agree after all! Wait until the next Presbytery meeting!

Baptist: Wha...What do you mean? Did I convince you that immersion is the only way for baptism to be properly administered?

Presbyterian: On the contrary - you gave me great evidence against it!

Baptist: I did?!?

Presbyterian: You sure did. You convinced me that getting your feet wet doesn't make one baptized. You convinced me that getting wet up to your knees or waist doesn't make one baptized. You convinced me that being up to your chest or neck in water doesn't make one baptized. You even convinced me that being up to your eyeballs in water doesn't cut it.

Baptist: So?!?

Presbyterian: So what that tells me is that both of us deem water being administered to the head as sufficient to consider one baptized.

A Response to Daniel (Pst Audrey's Zone) regarding the Word-Faith Movement

2006-02-13T21:00:00.000+08:00

This is in response to Daniel (Pst Audrey's Zone) who has posted comments in my article Refutation of City Harvest's "Divine Healing" Article (Part 2).

Daniel (Pst Audrey's Zone) wrote,

I think you represent the submarine aspect of the church that Pst [Kong Hee] was talking about which is so deep into theology (they can't wake up), theology that even God dosen't know about & once in a while would emerge with their binoculars to view the world as evil & condemns them to hell!

Perhaps you care to clearly define the “theology that even God doesn’t know about?” If what you say is accurate, that Kong Hee vilifies Bible-believing Christians, then I do have an additional concern about the extra-biblical teachings that are being taught in City Harvest.

To be “deep in theology” is to revere the Word of God. I do not see how any practicing Christian could despise the Scriptures when it is plain that the Word of God is meant to guide our lives.

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path. – Psalm 119:105

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. – Hebrews 4:12

On Charismatics and the Word-Faith Movement
Daniel (Pst Audrey's Zone) wrote,

Btw, most Pentecostal & Charismatic churches believe in Divine Healing regardless of which denomination they may come from, be they A/G, Church of S'pore or the Foursquare Gospel & not only limited to the Word-Faith Movement & I distinctively remembered your 'headline' being in this article refuting our Divine Healing Article published. So you are not only going against our Church but also the millions of Pentecostals/Charismatics worldwide who share the same tenents of precious like-faith.

Actually, I would say we do believe in the sovereignty of God; that God is able to heal wherever and whenever He pleases. Because God cannot contradict Himself, divine healing must be conformed to the biblical pattern found in the Word of God.

The teachings found in the word-faith movement with respect to health and wealth is regarded as aberrant by many Charismatics and Pentecostals. Many Charismatics and Pentecostals believe in divine healing, but not according to the way the word-faith camp defines it. Having been involved in the charismatic movement for 15 years, I should know. I do have friends in charismatic circles, and many of them too do not believe in the deviant teachings found in the word-faith movement.

The Watchman Fellowship, which describes itself as a ministry of Christian discernment, has this to say about those in the word-faith camp:

They typically shift the issue, claiming that those who are opposing them are anti-charismatic (cessationists, believing that the miraculous gifts have ceased). This misinformation or red herring is designed to lead their followers to automatically dismiss anything word-faith critics say.

To set the record straight, the staff of Watchman Fellowship is multi-denominational, as are most of the critics of the word-faith movement. Watchman's staff is comprised of Baptists, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God members, etc. Our staff knows that God does heal and does the miraculous.

Most of Watchman's staff believe in the continuance of the miraculous gifts for today. Biblically, all Christians are charismatics in that all Christians possess spiritual gifts.

Well-known charismatic David Wilkerson, founding pastor of Times Square Church wrote,

I am meeting Christians throughout our nation whose faith is shipwrecked because they are disillusioned and hurt. They came upon a "faith" teaching that made them believe that getting every desire of the heart depended simply on getting their formulas correct. They were challenged to launch out in God for prosperity, perfect health, and whatever else their minds could conceive. "Conceive, then believe," they were told. They were urged to blot out of their thinking all thoughts of suffering, pain, poverty - or anything negative. They were carried along by the testimonies of those around them who were getting new cars, homes, jobs, fur coats, diamond rings - whatever their hearts desired - all through positive faith.

George Wood, the General Secretary of the Assemblies of God, observes that there are three basic faulty assumptions controlling the "positive confession" theology.

First, that God wills perfect health, total healing, and complete prosperity for every believer. Second, that God has obligated Himself to heal every sickness and to financially prosper those who have faith. Third, any failure is not the fault of God, but is caused by a lack of faith or sin in the individual's life.

Wood commented in Mountain Movers, July 1988,

[These teachers] have missed the Bible in three ways: They twist particular verses out of their plain meaning; they refuse to deal with Scriptures which plainly have different meanings than those of the `positive confession;' and they fail to let the Bible speak for itself.

John Piper, a staunch “seven point Calvinist,” who wrote “after 20 years of Bible study and friendships with charismatic believers I will say with even more assurance: Let us not reject or despise any of God's gifts, including tongues” has this to say about the word-faith movement:

God can and does heal the sick now in answer to our prayers. But not always. The miracle mongers of our day who guarantee that Jesus wants you well now and heap guilt after guilt on the back of God's people asserting that the only thing between them and health is unbelief have failed to understand the nature of God's purposes in this fallen age. They have minimized the depth of sin and the cruciality of God's purifying chastening and the value of faith through suffering and they are guilty of trying to force into this age what God has reserved for the next.

On “Winning” the World to Christ
Daniel (Pst Audrey's Zone) wrote,

…its just that we feel we have a whole world to win over to Christ (as preached over the weekend) & not just sit down & engage in a never-ending shallow 'fight' & splitting theological hairs with you which would not edify us @ all…

What does it mean by “a world to win over to Christ?” If you are referring to the Great Commission, we are specifically told to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). The phrase “make disciples” is matheteuo in Greek. It means “to become a pupil; transitively, to disciple, i.e. enrol as scholar:--be disciple, instruct, teach.”

We are to teach the truth. It is written, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). How do we know the truth then? By studying the Word of God. It is written,

And how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. – 2 Timothy 3:15

We are to be disciples by studying the Word of God. We are “to teach what is in accord with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). Roman Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses can claim that they are trying to “win” the world over to Christ. But are their gospels the same as the true biblical gospel found in the Word of God? Most absolutely not.

Plainly speaking, by engaging in this discussion with you, I am fulfilling the Great Commission, which calls us to make disciples – disciples who are expected to be grounded in the Word of God.

On Theology and the Word of God
Daniel (Pst Audrey's Zone) wrote,

…held captive by theology & a set of methodology to play the Holy Spirit in your life!

If the phrase “held captive by theology & a set of methodology” means I am held captive by the Word of God, then I am proud to be numbered among Christians, which includes the apostles, the Reformers and all the Christians who were and are willing to give up their lives for the sake of the Word of God.

Martin Luther once said,

Unless I am thus convinced, I am bound by the texts of the Bible, my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I neither can nor will recant anything, since it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.

“Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” according to Romans 10:17. If the word-faith teachings are at odds with the Word of God, then how can the message preached by the word-faith adherents be true then? Wouldn’t the word-faith movement be guilty of preaching a false gospel and a false Christ?

Do read the book of Galatians. The Galatians certainly do believe in Jesus Christ. However, it is plain to see that the “minor” theological doctrine the Apostle Paul was “splitting theological hairs” over with them was of utmost importance to the gospel.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! – Galatians 1:6-9

Thus, theology is important. Soteriology shapes evangelistic methodology. A sound doctrine of salvation would produce a sound practice of evangelism. If you do not understand the Word of God, then how can you preach the gospel correctly, much less attempt to “win the world to Christ?”

Theology and the Christian faith cannot exist apart. By saying “I believe in the Holy Trinity” is adopting a theology. “Jesus Christ is the Son of God” is also a theology. It is absurd to act as though theology is a burden to the Christian faith. The study of theology is an act of worship. We study theology so that we are able to discern false teachings. For it is written:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. – 1 John 4:1

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. – 2 Peter 2:1

How does one recognize “destructive heresies?” By engaging in the theological study of the Word of God. True disciples of Jesus Christ test all teachings by going back to the Word of God.

Why do we share the good news about Jesus with all peoples, including Muslims?

2006-02-12T13:00:00.000+08:00

FRONTIERS shares with us the following reasons:

We are followers of Jesus, called Isa al-Masih by Muslims. This means that He holds supreme importance for us. We seek to center our lives on Jesus and the good news about Him.
What is this good news? We have experienced peace with God, the forgiveness of our sins, and the hope of eternal life through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It is our delight to share this good news with others. It is also our duty to share the good news with all the peoples of the world, because Jesus instructed us to do so.
Therefore, we seek to live in the world as peacemakers, inviting men and women everywhere to be reconciled to God and to one another.
We, who come from many cultures, countries and backgrounds, offer this message of peace to all people in love, with respect and cultural sensitivity, without coercion or material inducement.
We believe that only God can convert people. Christianity and Islam agree on this point. For many, the titles “Muslim” and “Christian” define an external, cultural identity. Instead of focusing on external labels, we invite all people, including Muslims, to an inward change through Jesus.
We rejoice that when the gospel brings inward change to believers who embrace it, they then bring positive transformation to the communities where they live.
As followers of Jesus, we are motivated to do good deeds. In this way we imitate Jesus, honor God, and seek to heal a hurting world.
For us, all of life is devoted to Jesus. Therefore, wherever we live and whatever our occupation, our work is witness and we witness at work.
Jesus and the good news about him are so precious to us that we are willing to sacrifice and suffer in order to give people an opportunity to know the good news about him.

And here are ten reasons why we love Muslims by FRONTIERS.

God loves Muslims!
Muslims are loved by God in the same way that He loves all people. Like all humans, Muslims are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Like all humans, Muslims sin and fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). Like all humans, God loved them so much that He sent His son, so that those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life (John 3:16).

God calls Muslims to Himself!
God designed all of us to seek after Him. That includes Muslims. "From one man, He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth", . . . God did this so men would seek Him and perhaps reach out to Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:24-31, espec. 26,30)." Like you and I, God has placed "eternity in their hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11)."

Muslims are our neighbors.
Whether in America or in the Middle East, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peace-loving, hospitable people.

Muslims are people, too!
Most Muslims are concerned about the same things as you and I. They want to raise their children well, they are concerned about rising crime and pornography, and work hard to pay their bills and survive. Like us, most Muslims decry human suffering and violence between peoples. Many Muslims yearn for peace, friendship, and a happy life. We share the same concerns and needs.

God is at work among Muslims!
Many Muslims are sensitive to God and spiritual things. Because they fear God and are aware of spiritual reality, Muslims often speak of how God appeared to them through dreams and visions, just like He did to the God-fearer Cornelius (Acts 10:1-8). Stories abound of healings because of God's power through Jesus. An increasing number of Muslims are hungry to know about God's dramatic work through Jesus.

Because we are spiritually related.
Many Muslims look to 'Ibrahim (Abraham) as "our forefather (Romans 4:1)." Since those who follow Jesus call Abraham "the father of all who believe (Romans 4:11)," that makes us 'cousins' ! Like us, Muslims believe in one true God, the Creator of all peoples.

Because they value our Holy Book and Jesus.
The Qu'ran specifically commends the Torat (books of the Law, the first five books of the Bible); the Zibur (the Psalms, or wisdom literature); and the injil (the Gospels). Jesus was sent by God to earth; Jesus healed many during his ministry; and he is returning to judge the living and the dead.

Because they have something to teach us.
Muslims take the spiritual world very seriously and generally are more open to discuss spiritual issues. They have a very high respect for God and His power. Muslims place a high value on community and loyalty. Hospitality is very important to them. These are qualities that most westerners appreciate in their Muslim friends.

God made promises to their ancestors.
Many Muslims look to 'Ibrahim (Abraham) as their ancestor through his first son, Ishmael. God made this promise to Ibrahim: "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and I will make him fruitful, and I will multiply him. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation (Genesis 17:20)." God fulfilled this promise, for there are over one billion Muslims in the world today!

Because God promised that Muslims who follow Jesus will be part of the multitudes who are gathered about the Throne of God.
When God gathers all His people at the end of time, there will be representatives from every people group on the earth, "from every nation and tribe and people and language, standing before the Throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, . . . crying out in a loud voice, 'Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, . . .(Revelation 7:9,10)!"

FRONTIERS' passion is to glorify God by planting churches that lead to movements among all Muslim peoples through apostolic teams in partnership with others who share this vision.

John Piper on the Muslim Outrage Over Cartoons of Mohammed

2006-02-09T17:34:00.000+08:00

Justin Taylor have received a personal email from John Piper who gave the following comment:

"Am I missing it, or is there an unusual silence in the blogosphere about the Muslim outrage over the cartoons of Mohammed. To me this cries out for the observation that when artists put the crucifix in a flask of urine, Christians were grieved and angered, but not one threatened to kill anyone. Our longing is to convert the blasphemers with the Good News of Christ's death and resurrection, not kill them. Our faith is based on One who was reviled not just in cartoons but in reality and received it patiently for the salvation of the cartoonists. These riots are filled with intimations about the glorious difference between Christ and Mohammed, and between the way of Christ and the way of Islam. And the cowing of the press around the world and the US government is ominous for the fear we are under of Islam--not just extremist Islam. I do not respect the teachings of Islam which when followed devoutly lead to destruction. So I have been pondering which will take me out first, Islam, Uncle Sam, or cancer. No matter, all authority belongs to Jesus. I just want to bear faithful witness to his glorious gospel of peace to the end."

Let us rejoice that Jesus Christ taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to love our enemies. When Christianity is mocked by others, do not return hate for hate, but rather like what Piper wrote, "convert the blasphemers with the Good News of Christ's death and resurrection."

John Piper has also written an article titled "Being Mocked: The Essence of Christ’s Work, Not Muhammad’s."

That’s the most basic difference between Christ and Muhammad and between a Muslim and a follower of Christ. For Christ, enduring the mockery of the cross was the essence of his mission. And for a true follower of Christ enduring suffering patiently for the glory of Christ is the essence of obedience. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matthew 5:11). During his life on earth Jesus was called a bastard (John 8:41), a drunkard (Matthew 11:19), a blasphemer (Matthew 26:65), a devil (Matthew 10:25); and he promised his followers the same: “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (Matthew 10:25).

The caricature and mockery of Christ has continued to this day. Martin Scorsese portrayed Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ as wracked with doubt and beset with sexual lust. Andres Serrano was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts to portray Jesus on a cross sunk in a bottle of urine. The Da Vinci Code portrays Jesus as a mere mortal who married and fathered children.

How should his followers respond? On the one hand, we are grieved and angered. On the other hand, we identify with Christ, and embrace his suffering, and rejoice in our afflictions, and say with the apostle Paul that vengeance belongs to the Lord, let us love our enemies and win them with the gospel. If Christ did his work by being insulted, we must do ours likewise.
...
A religion with no insulted Savior will not endure insults to win the scoffers.

John Piper is currently scheduled on February 14 to undergo surgery for his treatment of prostate cancer.

C. H. Spurgeon on Calvinism (3)

2006-02-05T19:00:00.000+08:00

What the Arminian wants to do is to arouse man's activity: what we want to do is to kill it once for all---to show him that he is lost and ruined, and that his activities are not now at all equal to the work of conversion; that he must look upward. They seek to make the man stand up: we seek to bring him down, and make him feel that there he lies in the hand of God, and that his business is to submit himself to God, and cry aloud, 'Lord, save, or we perish.' We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all. When he says, "I can pray, I can believe, I can do this, and I can do the other," marks of self-sufficiency and arrogance are on his brow.

- Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)

Faith alone, not deeds, required for salvation, papal preacher tells pontiff

2006-01-24T21:55:00.000+08:00

I have discovered the Catholic Online news article Faith alone, not deeds, required for salvation, papal preacher tells pontiff through the website of James White. It is quite astonishing to read of the Protestant doctrine of salvation through faith alone from a Roman Catholic theologian.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

"Christianity does not start with that which man must do to save himself, but with what God has done to save him," Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa said in his Dec. 16 Advent meditation.

The preacher told the pope and top Vatican officials that they, like St. Paul, must avoid any temptation to think that the good works they have accomplished will guarantee their salvation.

"Gratuitous justification through faith in Christ is the heart" of St. Paul's preaching "and it is a shame that this has been practically absent from the ordinary preaching of the church," he said.

Father Cantalamessa said that the Protestant Reformation debate over the role of faith and works led the Catholic Church to focus so much on the need for the demonstration of faith in actions that it practically ignored the need for faith in the first place.

This sermon came from no ordinary Roman Catholic. Raniero Cantalamessa’s website gave the following description of him:

Raniero Cantalamessa is a Franciscan Capuchin Catholic Priest. Born in Ascoli Piceno, Italy, 22 July 1934, ordained priest in 1958. Divinity Doctor and Doctor in classical literature. Former Ordinary Professor of History of Ancient Christianity and Director of the Department of religious sciences at the Catholic University of Milan. Member of the International Theological Commission (1975-1981).

In 1979 he resigned his teaching position to become a full time preacher of the Gospel. In 1980 he was appointed by Pope John Paul II Preacher to the Papal Household in which capacity he still serves, preaching a weekly sermon in Advent and Lent in the presence of the Pope, the cardinals, bishops an prelates of the Roman Curia and the general superiors of religious orders.

If the Vatican does heeds the advice of Raniero Cantalamessa (though it seems unlikely), then it may have to, for the first time, reverse the canon of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

It is only as recently as 1998 in its official Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification where the Vatican dealt with the doctrine of justification:

The Catholic Church maintains, moreover, that the good works of the justified are always the fruit of grace. But at the same time, and without in any way diminishing the totally divine initiative (5), they are also the fruit of man, justified and interiorly transformed. We can therefore say that eternal life is, at one and the same time, grace and the reward given by God for good works and merits.
…
In pursuing this study further, it will be necessary to treat also the sacrament of penance, which is mentioned in n. 30 of the Joint Declaration. According to the Council of Trent, in fact (7), through this sacrament the sinner can be justified anew ( rursus iustificari ): this implies the possibility, by means of this sacrament, as distinct from that of baptism, to recover lost justice (8).

As we can see, there is no change from its position affirmed at the Council of Trent. However, if the Vatican concludes we are justified by faith alone, then it follows that the sacrament of penance is not needed any more since there is no “lost justice” to be recovered. Its sacramental works-based system can be abolished.

There is an interesting article found in Raniero Cantalamessa’s website, which is a transcript of the “talk delivered to the world wide representants of Alpha Course
London, 27 June 2005.”

Very early in the article, I am delighted to see that Cantalamessa affirms the doctrine of Solus Christus, which I am ashamed to say, many evangelicals do not embrace. In particular, he strikes out at the liberals who teach there are many ways to salvation. Actually, in my opinion, he appears to be even more "Protestant" than the megachurch preacher Joel Osteen, who denies the doctrine of Solus Christus.

From this point of view, then, Jesus Christ is very much present and exploited in our culture. But if we turn to the ambit of faith, where he really belongs, we notice a disturbing absence, or even rejection of him. First of all among theologians. One theological current today holds that Christ came for the salvation of the Gentiles, not of the Jews (for whom, they say, it is sufficient to remain faithful to the Old Covenant). Another current says that he is not necessary for the Gentiles either, since they, through their religions, have a direct relationship with the eternal Logos and have no need of any mediation by the Word incarnate or his paschal mystery. We may well ask, for whom then is Christ still necessary?

He also spoke of the need to preach the gospel; the importance of evangelism of the gospel above all other social needs. This immediately brings to my mind Matthew 16:26, “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?”

The Church is generally accepted and esteemed as a social agency, for her work in favour of peace and social justice, but is ill tolerated or ignored as soon as she starts speaking about Jesus and his Gospel. Ecclesial movements and individuals who dedicate themselves to evangelization and promotion of faith are easily labelled as conservative, reactionary or fundamentalist.

Lest I am misconstrued as completely agreeing with him, I would like to state that I strongly disagree with his ecumenism as the heart of the gospel lies in the doctrine of justification. To deny or to misinterpret this doctrine can be eternally fatal. Cantalamessa said,

The affirmation that this salvation is received by faith and not by works is certainly present in the text, and at the time of the Reformation it was the point that most urgently needed to be brought back into focus. But now that we have reached fundamental agreement on this point (see the document issued jointly in 1999 by the Catholic Church and the World Federation of Lutheran Churches), we are challenged to rediscover and together proclaim what was the fundamental point in Paul’s teaching: the universal relevance of Christ’s redemption.

Contrary to his speech that implies we can move forward from the doctrine of justification, I would point out that the Common declaration on the Doctrine of Justification issued by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation (1999) shows no change in the Roman Catholic position – that justification can be lost. The document states:

30. … But when individuals voluntarily separate themselves from God, it is not enough to return to observing the commandments, for they must receive pardon and peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation through the word of forgiveness imparted to them in virtue of God's reconciling work in Christ.

From Charismatic to Reformed

2006-01-20T11:00:00.000+08:00

My purpose in writing this post is to provide a little insight into my background. I realize most of my readers may not be aware I was part of the charismatic movement.

Early Years
I have been involved in the charismatic movement for some 15 years. I was formerly a member of a non-denominational church with charismatic beliefs where I attended Sunday school since age 10. From young, I have been taught charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophecies are part of a bona fide Christian experience.

Before I entered my teens, I remember my dad used to play Christian music from Maranatha Music in the car while he took me to school. I also remember I love listening to songs from the Psalty cassette tapes by Ernie Rettino. Besides church activities and Sunday school camps, I have attended children programmes organized by the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship International. I also recall attending an evangelistic crusade where Reinhard Bonnke was the main speaker.

All these took place somewhere between the mid-eighties and late-eighties.

Early Teens
I was 14 when I was involved in a ministry. I became part of the sound crew. I served for around 3 years before joining the youth music ministry as a pianist after my GCE “O” level exams. During those times, I became interested in Christian music. I would go to Christian Growth and Trumpet Praise, two Christian stores in Paradiz Centre to purchase cassette tapes. The first tapes I bought were by Integrity Music – Highest Place by Bob Fitts and Chosen Treasure by Bob Kauflin. The first time I attended the Festival of Praise was in 1990 where I bought the tape Pray For This City by Rick and Patti Ridings.

Since then, I have bought quite a number of Integrity Music tapes. Besides tapes from Integrity Music, I remember Bob Fitts’ albums as one of my favorites, for example Live Worship With Bob Fitts (Maranatha Music) and Take My Healing To The Nations / Sacrifice. The first CCM (Christian Contemporary Music) album I bought was by Twila Paris called Cry For The Desert.

During my early teens, I became interested in reading about apologetics, mostly reading books by Josh McDowell. Some of the McDowell books are Understanding the Occult, Understanding Secular Religions, More Than a Carpenter, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1 & 2. Other popular books that I read during my teens include The Bondage Breaker and Victory over the Darkness by Neil T. Anderson and Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth by Richard J. Foster.

At 15, I was baptized by immersion. It was an interesting baptism as I was baptized at the East Coast beach by the sea.

Mid to Late Teens
I believe I switched from cassette tape to CD in my mid-teens. I began to discover worship music by Kent Henry. I was quite a big Kent Henry fan back then, having bought many of his CDs. I also remember Petra, a Christian rock group, which I listened to. Some of the Christian artistes and worship leaders whose albums I bought during that time include Lenny LeBlanc, Don Moen, Ron Kenoly, Steven Curtis Chapman, Michael English, Ray Boltz, and Dennis Jernigan. I have also bought worship albums from Christ for the Nations.

There were a couple of events I have attended during those years. I was consistently attending the Festival of Praise every year. There were events that have artistes like The Continental Singers, Bobby Michaels, Ron Kenoly and a Christian trumpeter whose name escapes my memory. I have also attended a seminar by Bill Gothard from the Institute in Basic Life Principles.

I was about 18 when I began serving as a pianist in the Sunday main service, in addition to serving in the youth music ministry. I was also involved with Campus Crusade for Christ as well, having attended their basic and intermediate training.

Into Adulthood
After my National Service, I was still serving as a pianist in the main service, though I was no longer serving in the youth music ministry. By that time, I have already participated in a couple of music-related and evangelistic church events. I have gone for mission trips and retreats.

During this time, I have read Charismatic Chaos by John F. MacArthur, as well as bought the book Surprised by the Power of the Spirit by Jack Deere.

It was probably during this time when I became interested in the history of Christianity. It was mainly because I was interested in examining the doctrinal errors of Roman Catholicism. I was still an Arminian then. One thing basically led to another. I learnt of the five Solas. From there, I became interested in theology. One book that got me interested in theology was By Faith Alone: The Doctrine that Divides by R.C. Sproul. I also bought the book The Doctrine of Sanctification by A.W. Pink. At that time, I did not know that these books were by Reformed writers. In fact, I have never heard about Calvinism or TULIP.

After reading By Faith Alone, I felt as though I have gone through an experience similar to Martin Luther; when he discovered the cardinal truth of salvation. I began to buy more theological books such as The Roman Catholic Controversy by James R. White and Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree? by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. These books make me more appreciative of the five Solas. I have also bought an abridged version of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion even though I was not a Calvinist then.

During that time, I was still buying CD albums from Christian music groups like Hillsong Music Australia, Youth Alive Australia, and Planet Shakers. Some CCM artistes whose albums I bought that comes to mind are Point of Grace, Amy Grant, Rebecca St James, Rachael Lampa, Jaci Velasquez, Russ Lee, and Michael W. Smith.

As I immersed myself into these theological books, I began to turn more and more towards the Word of God. Before this, I was not a serious student of the Word of God, not giving it priority over my love for charismatic worship. Yes, I did read the Gospels and knew the popular Bible stories, but I have not paid much attention to sound doctrine.

The book that was instrumental in turning me into a 5-point Calvinist was Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul. While By Faith Alone awaken me to Sola Fide, Chosen By God impressed upon me the doctrine of Sola Gratia - the sovereign grace of God. From then on, I began dive into the Reformed faith, examining theological arguments by Arminians, buying books by Reformed writers, and not least, carefully studying the Word of God.

At Present
I am still listening to charismatic worship and CCM music, though not as much as I used to when I was a teenager. Nowadays, I find myself enjoying the hymns in the church service much more than the modern stuff i.e. Hillsong, Planet Shakers, Passion Worship Band etc. The sermons have become the most important part of the Sunday worship service for me. I am also more selective in the music I am listening to nowadays, favoring songs with meaningful lyrical content over songs with shallow “Jesus-is-my-Boyfriend” lyrics.

I now hold a cessationalist view of the Apostolic spiritual gift of prophecy, healing and tongues. However, I am a "weak" cessationalist as I believe these visible manifestations only occur under extraordinary circumstances and they are by way of exception rather than the norm.

Like all Calvinists, I do believe in miracles because the miracles God performing today, since the beginning of Creation, is regenerating the hearts of His elect. For without these miracles, evangelism and missions is useless. I do not have to go to a "healing" crusade to see miracles. Just look around you. Believers who are saved through the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ are visible walking proofs that God is still actively performing miracles today.

Benny Hinn: A Heretic and a Fraud

2006-01-12T01:00:00.000+08:00

I believe these are the appropriate words to describe Benny Hinn. A heretic. A fraud. If you think that the NKF controversy is bad, in which the former CEO TT Durai mismanged the charity funds of the National Kidney Foundation, wait till you watch the NBC Dateline video of Benny Hinn. This shocking video is a must-watch. By comparison, this video makes Durai look like a generous saint. The video can be viewed at this link, courtesy of Wittenburgdoor.com.

Wittenburgdoor.com, which bills itself as "The World's Pretty Much Only Religious Satire Magazine," has written an insightful article on Benny Hinn, naming it The Heretic. Here is a brief description of Benny Hinn in a nutshell, taken from the article:

He has no church. He belongs to no denomination. He's not even affiliated with any particular religion, although his buzz words indicate he tends to dwell on the freaky backwoods fringe of Pentecostalism. As recently as three centuries ago, he probably would have been burned as a heretic. (To give you some idea of his doctrinal strangeness, he once preached that the Trinity is actually nine persons, because each member of the Trinity – Father, Son, Holy Spirit – is also a Trinity. He also says that God and the Holy Spirit have real bodies, with eyes, hands, mouth, etc. Various theologians have trashed him, of course, for preaching "new revelations" directly from God that turn out to be, when examined, variations of thousand-year-old heresies.) He thinks of himself as a prophet (even when his prophecies don't come true) and, in one burst of grandeur, "a little messiah walking on the earth." He believes that the Biblical Adam flew into outer space, that when God parted the Red Sea He made it into a wall of ice, that God talks to him more frequently than he talked to, say, Moses, that a man has risen from the dead in his presence, that a man turned into a snake before his eyes, that angels come to his bedroom and talk to him, and that the only reason we're not all in perfect health, living forever, is that there are demons in the world, attacking us. He's expressed opinions normally heard only on schizophrenia wards, and he's done it in front of millions of people – and still they come. They come in such numbers that thousands have to be turned away, and even the ones turned away gladly give him their money.

The article has also cites a number of examples where they uncover, after investigations, the healings were faked.

No wonder Hinn needs bodyguards. Very few, if any, of these people are actually healed. And when they die, or their disease becomes worse, their relatives tend to become angry. For the past ten years this has been demonstrated over and over again by various investigative reports conducted with the resources of the Trinity Foundation, beginning with an Inside Edition show in 1993 hosted by Bill O'Reilly and reported by Steve Wilson.
...
I could go on, but you get the idea. Even sadder than the people who think they're healed are the ones so sick that Hinn's employees never allow them to be seen on stage. People suffering from paralysis, brain damage, dementia and the like – people who couldn't possibly make any "demonstration" on stage – are rejected at a screening session held backstage.

Despite all these reports, it appears that City Harvest (Singapore) not only endorses Benny Hinn, but the organization featured him prominently in the front cover of Harvest Times Issue 25 (April - June 2005). The magazine was accompanied by articles such as Why Do We Believe In Divine Healing? and Jesus Heals.

City Harvest (Singapore) was also the organizer of Benny Hinn's "healing crusade" at the Singapore Indoor Stadium on March 2005.

Controversies do not just surround Benny Hinn alone. There is another shocking video of Benny Hinn's wife, Suzanne, where she said the following words:

If your engine is not revving up, you know what you need? You need a Holy Ghost enema right up your rear end. ... Be God-pleasers, don’t be people-pleasers. Because if you’re a people-pleaser, you’re a butt-kisser. If you’re a people-pleaser, you’re a butt-kisser. There’s no other word for it.

Following those words, she began babbling, and ran back and forth the stage a couple of times like a charging bull until she fell down. What astonishes me is not so much that she uttered blasphemeous words (maybe I expect this sort of thing from her), but the choir and congregation giving approval by clapping to her words and actions.

There are so many outright heresies in Benny Hinn's teachings that it makes me wonder how could any churches, pastors or Christians with basic Christian beliefs support Benny Hinn.

The denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. The heresy that Jesus Christ became one with Satan. The denial of the fact that Jesus was fully God and fully man. All these and many others. They are not mere non-essential doctrinal trivialities that one can write off, but full-blown blasphemies and heresies that set themselves against the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

For further reading, Dr. Kim Riddlebarger has written a good article The Theology of Benny Hinn, which examines the heretical teachings of Benny Hinn.

Links:
10 minutes of excerpts from Dateline's Benny Hinn investigation, Wittenburgdoor.com
The Heretic - Benny Hinn, Wittenburgdoor.com
Mrs. Benny Hinn's moment of zen, Beliefnet.com
The Theology of Benny Hinn, Modern Reformation Magazine

A Response to Terence Concerning the Prosperity Gospel

2006-01-10T21:20:00.000+08:00

This is in response to the blogger, Terence, who has posted nearly identical comments on my articles 1 Corinthians 4:6-17 - Suffering or Prosperity? and Refutation of City Harvest's "Divine Healing" Article (Part 1)

Terence wrote,

But I have to disagree with your stand on the prosperity gospel. The prosperity gospel does not turn God into "nothing more than a genie in a bottle, where God accedes to every material and healing requests of the believer." Where did you get that from? I believe in the prosperity gospel, yet I do not believe a single ounce of that statement.

Perhaps you may want to refer to these quotes:

Are you facing an impossible situation in your finances that has no earthly remedy? ... Offer up your sacrifice and prayers to the Lord in faith, believing that He will do according to your word … Heavenly Father. thank you for the promise of Your Word that declares that, whatever I ask You in the name of Jesus, You'll do. – Larry Keefauver and Tom Gill, Declare Your Inheritance, Harvest Times Issue 23

As a believer, you have a right to make commands in the name of Jesus. Each time you stand on the Word, you are commanding God to a certain extent because it is His Word. – Kenneth Copeland (Our Covenant with God [Fort Worth, TX: KCP Publications, 1987], 32.)

When I first got saved they didn't tell me I could do anything. What they told me to do was that whenever I prayed I should always say, 'The will of the Lord be done.' Now, doesn't that sound humble? It does. Sounds like humility, it's really stupidity. I mean, you know, really, we insult God. I mean, we really do insult our Heavenly Father. We do; we really insult Him without even realizing it. If you have to say, 'If it be thy will' or 'Thy will be done'--if you have to say that, then you're calling God a foolbecause He's the One that told us to ask. . . . If God's gonna give me what He wants me to have, then it doesn't matter what I ask. I'm only gonna get what God wants me to have. So that's an insult to God's intelligence. – Frederick K.C. Price ("Ever Increasing Faith" program on TBN [16 November 1990].)

More quotes can be found in the article Word of Faith and Revival Leaders: What They Teach.

On Matthew 6:33

Terence wrote,

THE fundamental verse of prosperity gospel is Matthew 6:33 "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." What does "these things" refer too? Looking at the verse in context, we find that it refers to our daily needs: clothing, food, shelter and of course, the money to purchase these things. So what the verse is saying is this: That if we seek God first and his righteousness in our lives, God will provide for our needs!

So God does NOT answer to our every whim and fancy! We answer to God! We can be sure that God will provide for us and bless us when we are righteous before God and if we are living in God's divine will. Verse 34 talks about ceasing to worry about our finances and our needs, because God will provide for us! This is what the prosperity gospel is about!

First of all, I do not think you understand the concept of being righteous. We are righteous by virtue of the righteousness of Christ, not by our own righteousness (Philippians 3:9). Believers are automatically righteous in God’s sight. Therefore, to imply that there is such a thing as an unrighteous believer is an oxymoron.

Second, what is the divine will of God? Actually, there are two divine wills of God; one that is revealed and another that is hidden from us. Let me give an illustration from the Bible; the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas is a sin according to the moral law of God. This sin is against the revealed will of God, but God permitted it to happen according to His hidden will. Also, according to God’s moral law, murder is against the will of God, but God allowed Jesus to be murdered through crucifixion. Again, it is the hidden will of God that Jesus was crucified.

To put it simply, we are all living under the hidden divine will of God. No one except God would know of His hidden will. Therefore, I would suppose you are not referring to His hidden will. And how about God’s revealed will then, the moral law of God? Unfortunately, it is written in Romans 3:23 that no one can fully obey the law.

Let me examine your statement in the light of what has been shown: “God will provide for us and bless us when we are righteous before God and if we are living in God's divine will.” If you are referring to the revealed will of God, that is His moral law, how much obedience is enough to be blessed? Is fifty percent obedience enough? How about eighty percent then? At which point does God begin blessing the believers?

What is Matthew 6:33 about in the first place? The clue is found in the words “His kingdom and His righteousness.” Consider this verse,

For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. – Colossians 1:13-14

As believers, we are already in the kingdom of God. However, the kingdom of God will reach its ultimate end when Jesus Christ returns in glory (1 Corinthians 15:50-58). We have already sought “His kingdom and His righteousness.” Christ’s righteousness is already imputed onto us. Since all these requirements are fulfilled for believers, the words “all these things will be given to [believers]” must be automatically fulfilled as well.

Are “all these things” given according to Matthew 6:33? Yes, but not in the sense of what the prosperity gospel implies. According to Terence, “all these things” are not automatically given. Believers need to be more "righteous" to inherit "all these things," as if there is another level of righteousness. If this is true, there are two classes of Christians: one class of blessed wealthy "righteous" Christians and another class of unblessed poor "unrighteous" Christians. Do we find any indication of such teachings in the Bible? I don't think so.

Here is another passage of Scripture found in the gospel of Matthew:

Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. – Matthew 19:27-29

According to Jesus, the disciples “will receive a hundred times as much.” Could Jesus be referring to earthly treasures? When we read 1 Corinthians 4:6-17, we discover that this is not the case. I have covered this in the article titled 1 Corinthians 4:6-17 - Suffering or Prosperity? The apostles were hungry, thirsty, in rags and homeless. At the end of their lives, most of them were martyred for their faith. If Jesus has promised them earthly treasures, then His promise has failed.

Therefore, it is clear Jesus must not have been referring to earthly treasures, but referring to heavenly treasures. It is written:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. – Matthew 6:19-20
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. – Luke 12:33

The Apostle Paul reinforced this doctrine of heavenly treasures when he was in prison writing the epistle to the Philippians.

Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. – Philippians 3:13-14

The Apostle Peter wrote of a heavenly inheritance that does not perish, spoil or fade:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade--kept in heaven for you. – 1 Peter 1:3-4

In conclusion, the first part of Matthew 6:33 would refer to the call of men to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is to seek the kingdom of God and the righteousness of Christ. The second part of the verse is about the promise of rewards in heaven.

On God and Money

Terence wrote,

Then what does verse 19-24 say? That we cannot serve 2 masters. But does this mean God and Money are contradictory things? No! In verse 24, it says that "we cannot serve two MASTERS." That means we can only serve God or Money. But this does not mean that we cannot HAVE or master money. It just means that we cannot let money control us! If God is in control, money can become a great way to finance God's work!

Having established that 1) God is definitely our Provider if we are righteous, and that 2) God and Money are not contradictory but are in fact complimentary, with money being a tool for God's Kingdom, let us look at Mark 10.

This is what I call setting up a straw-man argument. I have no issue with “mastering” money or whatever you call it. The real issue lies with the false doctrine that God promises to make us healthy and wealthy on earth.

I am disturbed that you made the statement “money can become a great way to finance God's work! … money being a tool for God's Kingdom.” Though it is true that most of the time money is required to get from point A to point B to preach the gospel, one must not forget the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation.

Observe in the gospel of Mark, when Jesus sent out his apostles,

These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff--no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." They went out and preached that people should repent. – Mark 6:8-12

The Kingdom of God is not expanded through money, but by the work of God alone. Therefore, all glory must be given to God alone. The recorded means of evangelism is through prayer and preaching, not money (Matthew 9:37-38, Romans 10:14-15).

On Mark 10:29-30

Terence wrote,

"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.”

These two verses talks about our rewards for forsaking all and following Him. What are our rewards? Eternal Life definitely. But not just that. God promises rewards IN THIS PRESENT AGE, which are a hundred times more than what we gave to God (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions)! Persecutions! Godly rewards come with persecution no doubt!

This verse has nothing to do with being prosperous or wealthy. It is speaking specifically of those who forsake home and loved ones for the sake of Jesus Christ and the gospel. These individuals will receive a “hundred times” in the sense that they become a part of a community of believers.

Let me quote the Baptist theologian Dr. John Gill (1690-1771) from Exposition of the Entire Bible:

shall receive an hundred fold: Mark adds, "now in this time"; and Luke likewise, "in this present time", in this world; which may be understood either in spiritual things, the love of God, the presence of Christ, the comforts of the Holy Ghost, the communion of saints, and the joys and pleasures felt in the enjoyment of these things, being an hundred times more and better to them, than all they have left or lost for Christ's sake; or in temporal things, so in Mark it seems to be explained, that such shall now receive an hundred fold.

And here is the comment of the Reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) from Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2:

But what he promises about recompensing them a hundredfold appears not at all to agree with experience; for in the greater number of cases, those who have been deprived of their parents, or children, and other relatives -- who have been reduced to widowhood, and stripped of their wealth, for the testimony of Christ -- are so far from recovering their property, that in exile, solitude and desertion, they have a hard struggle with severe poverty. I reply, if any man estimate aright the immediate grace of God, by which he relieves the sorrows of his people, he will acknowledge that it is justly preferred to all the riches of the world. For though unbelievers flourish, (Psalm 92:7,) yet as they know not what awaits them on the morrow (James 4:14,) they must be always tossed about in perplexity and terror, and it is only by stupefying themselves in some sort that they can at all enjoy prosperity. Yet God gladdens his people, so that the small portion of good which they enjoy is more highly valued by them, and far sweeter, than if out of Christ they had enjoyed an unlimited abundance of good things. In this sense I interpret the expression used by Mark, with persecutions; as if Christ had said, Though persecutions always await the godly in this world, and though the cross, as it were, is attached to their back, yet so sweet is the seasoning of the grace of God, which gladdens them, that their condition is more desirable than the luxuries of kings.

Please do refer to the portion on Matthew 19:27-29 as I have covered this issue in my argument on Matthew 6:33. Once again, I would like to stress the apostles did not die wealthy and healthy. John the Baptist did not die healthy and wealthy. They died poor at the very end of their lives.

On the Book of Job

Terence wrote,

“In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. He had seven sons and three daughters, and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.” (Job 1:1-3)

So who is Job? Firstly, he is a blameless and upright man. Secondly, he is rich with a capital R. I wonder how many rich Christians today have undergone the persecutions of so-called Christians who condemn them just because God has blessed them tremendously? I wonder what the media would slander about Job if he lived today?

Nonetheless, God decided to test Him. With God’s permission, the devil took away everything he had: his sons and daughters, his wealth, his possessions. To cut the long story short, his friends and even his wife spoke against him, trying to condemn him while Job insisted his righteousness. In the end, God intervenes, tells Job about his mistakes, and Job repents.

But what happens in the end? God prospers him even more! In Job 41:10, it says, “After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before.” So what this story illustrates is this: that righteousness brings about wealth and abundance!

First of all, Job was already righteous to begin with – “he feared God and shunned evil.” If anything, this biblical account demonstrates the sovereignty of God in taking away Job’s health and wealth despite being him being righteous.

Second, the Book of Job is largely concerned with the question, “Is misfortune always a divine punishment for something?” Job was a righteous man and he insisted on his being righteous. Job wanted to ask God for the reason behind his misfortune.

I have become a laughingstock to my friends, though I called upon God and he answered- a mere laughingstock, though righteous and blameless! – Job 12:4
How many wrongs and sins have I committed? Show me my offense and my sin. – Job 13:23

Contrary to the prosperity gospel, Job rightfully said that God afflicts both the righteous and the unrighteous.

It is all the same; that is why I say, 'He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.' – Job 9:22

His friends, like all prosperity teachers, argued otherwise and told him that his misfortune, as well as all misfortunes, is the result of the punishment for sin.

Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed? As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it. – Job 4:7-8

At the end of the book, Job repented of his wanting to question God for his misfortune. Job did not repent for insisting on his being righteous. His reason for repentance was the mistake of asking God to show him the reason behind his misfortune. Hence, by repenting he acknowledged the sovereignty of God in all things.

I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. – Job 42:2

And also, God became angry with the friends of Job that they “have not spoken of [Him] what is right, as [His] servant Job has” (Job 42:7). Job had spoken right of God by refuting his friends’ notions that it always goes well with good men and ill with bad men; whereas the reverse is the truth.

Why do the wicked live on, growing old and increasing in power? – Job 21:7

In conclusion, this biblical account portrays the sovereignty of God over all things; that God brings misfortune to both the righteous and the unrighteous according to His perfect will. It illustrates that being righteous does not bring about “wealth and abundance.” If you read chapter 42 of the book of Job carefully, there is no indication God making Job prosperous again is based on Job being righteous.

On Prosperity

Terence wrote,

This is an established pattern in the Bible. The nations of Israel and Judah prosper when its people are righteous. But when they sin against God, punishment and wrath comes. King Solomon, when he was righteous for God, sought wisdom, but he ended up getting wisdom plus prosperity. Adam and Eve had the Garden of Eden before they disobeyed God. But after that all they had was barren land. God saved Noah and destroyed everyone else, effectively giving the whole earth to Noah and his family.

No, prosperity is definitely not an established pattern in the Bible. On the contrary, it is established that God destroys both the righteous and the unrighteous according to Job 9:22. Misfortunes fell upon Job despite Job being righteous. I have raised up examples of the poverty of the apostles and John the Baptist. I do not see any means whereby adherents of the prosperity gospel could get around these examples.

As the inerrant and infallible Word of God, the Bible contains no contradictions. When we study the Word of God, we should aim to harmonize the verses. Upon closer examination of the prosperity gospel, it is conclusively proven that the prosperity gospel is not consistent with these examples I gave and thus should be rejected.

Four Bad Reasons to be Weird

2006-01-09T02:41:00.000+08:00

I have found this article Four Bad Reasons to be Weird by Gregory Koukl to be quite helpful in dealing with bad reasons posed by certain Christians, mostly if not all from charismatic circles. These reasons are commonly used to silence the opposition who question their bizarre doctrines and behaviors. Here are the bad reasons, provided along with excerpts from the article.

1. The Gospel is foolishness. We should be willing to be fools for Christ.

Some people ask: What's wrong with being weird? The Gospel is foolishness. We should be willing to be fools for Christ. Paul said we should be fools for Christ in 1 Corinthians 4. Paul says the Gospel is foolishness, so why should we subject the work of the Spirit to rational, logical, sensible assessment?

I got a response from a professor at Talbot, Dr. Paul Cox, who was talking to a non-Christian student who was laughing at the Gospel. Dr. Cox said, "Do you know why you're laughing? Because you're perishing."

You see, Dr. Cox understood 1 Corinthians 1:18, "For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness." 1 Corinthians 1:23 says, "We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to the Gentiles foolishness." To whom is the Gospel foolish? To those who are perishing, to the Gentiles who don't understand. Those are the ones who think it's foolish.

The Gospel is not foolish in itself, it's just foolish to those who don't understand it. In fact, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:6, "We do speak wisdom among the mature." It's wisdom, not foolishness, but it's a wisdom that is not of this age.

What about Paul saying we should be fools for Christ? He was being sarcastic. Look it up, 1 Corinthians 4:10, "We are fools for Christ; but you are prudent in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are distinguished but we are without honor." His own apostleship was in question: We're just lowly apostles, after all.

2. Don't quench (or grieve) the Holy Spirit.

You witness something that they suggest is the Holy Spirit. You say, Gee, I'm not so sure. I'm not going to participate. And then you're accused of quenching or grieving the Spirit.

This argument is circular. It presumes that the Holy Spirit is working, and by denying what's going on, you are grieving the Spirit when the question of whether the Holy Spirit is involved at all is precisely what is under consideration. By presuming that you're grieving the Spirit, they are presuming what you are questioning.

Worse than that, it's a veiled threat. It's like saying that when one challenges weirdness, he is actually hurting God's feelings or offending God. If you raise the question, you're threatened with hurting God's feelings. You are actually fighting God. You are not merely taking exception with the person who is inviting you to participate; you are fighting God. That's a very strong statement to make. It is precisely whether God is involved or not which is under question.

Don't be intimidated by someone who lays this particular trip on you. I might be quenching or grieving the Spirit. I'll take that chance. Why? Because the Spirit will survive, but I may not. I may not survive if I get involved in something weird and extreme and get pushed off the deep end. My faith may not survive it. That s why I say it's better to run the risk of quenching the Spirit--if that's what is going on--rather than going off the deep end.

Some people are afraid to risk quenching any spirit: the Spirit of God, the spirit of frivolity, the spirit of Antichrist. They think that just because it is supernatural and weird, it must be from God. The weirder the better. It's proof of God's hand.

3. You can't put God in a box.

You can't put God in a box. I'm amazed how many people actually think this is a good argument. The problem is, I can agree with the statement entirely. God can do anything He wants. I can't put God in a box. But does it follow from the fact that God can do whatever He wants that any particular manifestation in question is from God?

You can't put God in a box, therefore, bouncing around on your head during "a movement of the Spirit" is God's Spirit. How do you know for sure? Because you can't put God in a box.

One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. It's a non-answer. That kind of justification can be used to defend just about anything. I mean, sure, God can do anything He wants but that doesn't mean He is in fact doing anything here, which is the question.

What if I told you that you should come with me to a church that has a brand new work of the Spirit? You say, what is it? I say, when the Spirit moves us, we stand in a circle and urinate into a big tub. We pee in a pot. We call it "whizzing in the Spirit." You say, Koukl, that's bizarre. I say, there are no verses against it. Find a verse against it. In fact, I've got a proof text: "From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water." There it is! Works for me! After all, you can't put God in a box, can you? God can do whatever He wants, can't He? So who are you to judge Him?

Tell me what the difference is between my justification for whizzing in the Spirit and anyone else's similar justification for any other kind of bizarre thing. There is no difference. That isn't good evidence for my point of view. God can do whatever He wants, and it isn't good evidence for anyone else's point of view at all. The point is, God can do whatever He wants. So what? We're not talking about what God is capable of doing; we're talking about what God might actually be doing or maybe is not doing in this circumstance, and we have to ask different questions for that.

Some of you might be offended by my example. This is a principled example. The purpose wasn't to gross you out. It used to be that we could choose extreme examples which everybody would agree was bizarre. We'd choose something like swinging from the chandeliers or barking like dogs. We all knew it was an extreme example. The problem nowadays is things like the Toronto Blessing, where people are barking like dogs and roaring like animals, and this is called being Spirit-filled. The clear-case examples of the past are no longer clear-case examples, and I have to reach even further to come up with a case we can all agree is extreme.

4. Don't touch God's anointed.

The final defense is the one that annoys me the most: Don't touch God's anointed. You raise an objection to something that seems extreme and bizarre, and what you get is the statement, Don't touch God's anointed.

Do you know what that actually means? Do you know what people mean when they say it? They mean, Shut up. How dare you even raise the question about whether this man is anointed of God or not. They presume he is, and when you challenge it you are threatened.

Essentially, people are saying, Don't you dare try to protect God's church by raising questions, by being discerning, by trying to be careful. It may be that we raise a question about something going on and are wrong about it. It may be that the Holy Spirit really is working, but the way to conclude that is not by forcing people to shut up.

We have an obligation to ask the question. We have a responsibility from the Scriptures to pass judgment. Titus 1:9-11 says that "elders should be ones who hold fast the faithful word, which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able to both exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." Paul said if you want leadership in the church, you better know the truth so well that you can teach sound doctrine to people and clearly refute those who contradict.

Paul doesn't say you refute them by telling them to shut up. A refutation is a result of an analysis based on evidence and sound thinking. They're not silenced, they are refuted. In refuting them, they are silenced. Paul does say we should silence them. "There are many rebellious men, empty talkers, deceivers, especially those of the circumcision who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families." They're not silenced by being told to shut up, they're silenced by being refuted. This only happens when there is open conversation about the issues. It protects the church when Christians raise principled objections. If the questions are not proper, the best way to deal with them is to answer them, not to shut people up.

When somebody says to me don't touch God's anointed, I ask them where it is in the Bible. Normally they don't know, they just heard somebody else say it. Here's a standard rule of thumb when people try to issue a biblical mandate: Just ask them to look it up. Look it up yourself.

This particular reference is found in 1 Samuel 24: 6, 7, 11, and 13. David is hiding from Saul in fear for his life. Saul comes into the cave that David is hiding in to "relieve himself," as Scripture delicately puts it, and David cuts a piece from Saul's robe without him knowing it. He could have killed Saul. After Saul leaves, 1 Samuel 24: 6-7 reads: "So he said to his men, 'Far be it from me because of the Lord that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord's anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, since he is the Lord's anointed.' And David persuaded his men with these words and did not allow them to rise up against Saul."

Not touching the Lord's anointed means not killing him. So don't let anyone intimidate you with this one to keep you from asking appropriate questions.

The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism

2006-01-07T00:00:00.000+08:00

(I have previously posted a satirical article A Modern Evangelical Shorter Catechism. Well, here is another one, which pokes fun at Arminians and dispensationalists. The original article can be found at this link.)

Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian's chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.

Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.

Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord'n'saviour

Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.

Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.

Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner's Prayer in my own words.

Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.

Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.

Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner's Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.

Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.

Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.

Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!

Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!

Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.

Q: What doth this tract principally teach?
A: The Four Spiritual Laws principally teach, that God's entire plan for history and the universe centereth on me, and that I am powerful enough to thwart His divine purpose if I refuse to let Him pursue His Wonderful Plan for my life.

Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives until the day we got saved.

Q: I'm so happy, what's the reason why?
A: Jesus took my burden all away!

Q: What are the means given whereby we may save large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.

Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys' Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.

Q: Who is your boss?
A: My boss is a Jewish carpenter.

Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.

Q: What is sanctification?
A: Sanctification is the work of my free Will, whereby I am renewed by having my Daily Quiet Time.

Q: What rule hath God for our direction in prayer?
A: The rule that we must bow our hands, close our heads, and fold our eyes.

Q: What doth the Lord's Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord's Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.

Q: What's the book for thee?
A: The B-I-B-L-E.

Q: Which are among the first books which a Christian should read to his soul's health?
A: Among the first books which a Christian should read are the books of Daniel and Revelation, and The Late Great Planet Earth.

Q: Who is on the Lord's side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.

Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.

Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.

Q: What is the Lord's Supper?
A: The Lord's Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ's command to pretend that they are His body and blood.

Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.

Q: What is the Church?
A: The Church is the tiny minority of individuals living at this time who have Jesus in their hearts, and who come together once a week for a sermon, fellowship and donuts.

Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian.

Q: What meaneth "The Priesthood Of All Believers"?
A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth that there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by elders, presbyters, deacons, and bishops, but that each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith.

Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.

Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.

Q: When will be the "Last Days" of which the Bible speaketh?
A: The "Last Days" are these days in which we are now living, in which the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Thief in the Night shall most certainly appear.

Q: What is the name of the event by which Christians will escape these dreadful entities?
A: The event commonly known as the Rapture, in the which it is our Blessed Hope that all cars driven by Christians will suddenly have no drivers.

Q: When is Jesus coming again?
A: Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon.

Q: When the roll, roll, roll, is called up yonder, where will you be?
A: There.

Q: Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!
A: Praise ye the Lord!

Q: Praise ye the Lord!
A: Hallelujah!

Q: Where will we meet again?
A: Here, there, or in the air.

Q: Can I hear an Ay-men?
A: Ay-men.

1 Corinthians 4:6-17 - Suffering or Prosperity?

2006-01-06T03:59:00.000+08:00

Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have become kings—and that without us! How I wish that you really had become kings so that we might be kings with you! For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men. We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.

I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Corinthians 4:6-17

The Apostle Paul has written the above Scriptural passage to the church in Corinth. Now what do we know about the Corinthians from the first epistle to the Corinthians? Well, here is a brief list that I have compiled:

They were followers of men (1 Corinthians 1:10-12).
They do not lack any spiritual gift (1 Corinthians 1:7).
They were once the lowly things of this world; unwise, not influential and not of noble birth (1 Corinthians 1:26-29).
They were still worldly – mere infants in Christ (1 Corinthians 3:1-3). They do not display the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23); there was jealousy and quarreling among themselves (1 Corinthians 3:3).
They did not give glory to God for their material blessings (1 Corinthians 4:7).
They were rich and honored by men (1 Corinthians 4:8).
There was sexual immorality among them; and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans (1 Corinthians 5:1).
There were lawsuits among them (1 Corinthians 6:7).
There were cheating and wrongdoings among them (1 Corinthians 6:8).

The apostles, however, stood in sharp contrast with the church in Corinth.

They were like men condemned to die; a spectacle to the whole universe (1 Corinthians 4:9).
They were fools for Christ and dishonored among men (1 Corinthians 4:10).
They were hungry and thirsty. They were in rags. They were brutally treated. They were homeless. All in all, they were poor. (1 Corinthians 4:11)
They were cursed and persecuted by men (1 Corinthians 4:12).
They were regarded as scum of the earth; the refuse of the world (1 Corinthians 4:13).

If I do not know any better, the Apostle Paul might have been describing the megachurches of today, instead of the church in Corinth. The megachurches that love to preach health and wealth to its followers in opposition to the teaching of the Word of God. And since the church in Corinth did not lack in any spiritual gift, I would imagine that there were faith healers and prophets in the church of Corinth, very much like the megachurches too.

However, does the exhibition of spiritual gifts and material blessings prove that the church is right with God? Of course not, as we can see from the apostle’s warning found in 1 Corinthians 4:14.

Let us consider the following verse:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. – Matthew 6:19-21

The church in Corinth was obviously not heeding this biblical injunction. Their hearts were fixed on the treasures on earth, not on the treasures in heaven. And as a result, the Apostle Paul had to warn them that they were disobeying the Word of God (1 Corinthians 4:14).

What would be the remedy to the problems in the church then? The Apostle Paul wrote,

Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church. – 1 Corinthians 4:16-17

The apostle urged the church in Corinth to imitate him in his way of life; to suffer for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is written:

For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him. – Philippians 1:29

From the look of it, it appears that the church in Corinth was not really putting any effort into evangelism. Perhaps the church was conducting “seeker-sensitive” services to appeal to the worldly pagans. Perhaps many people were drawn to the church because of promises of health and wealth. In any case, it is clear the church in Corinth was not suffering.

It is also likely possible that after reading the epistle, the church in Corinth would not be too happy with the Apostle Paul upsetting their way of life. If the church is like the megachurches, its proponents might be writing a letter back to the apostle, warning him not to judge them. They were probably having a very good time with their material riches, eating and drinking while the apostles suffer for the sake of the gospel.

For I believe if the church was really preaching the gospel among the pagans, I highly doubt that the Corinthians would be honored among men. Instead they would be reviled everywhere. The church in Corinth would have been like the church in Philippi, going through the same struggle like the Apostle Paul (Philippians 1:30).

Take for instance, imagine trying to preach the gospel to the unbelieving Arabs in Saudi Arabia. Or how about somewhere closer to home, like the Malay Muslims in Malaysia. Would you expect health and material blessings to be showering all over you? Or would you expect to be persecuted and your possessions taken away from you? The answer is pretty obvious. I believe the apostles were facing a similar sort of situation. And as the Apostle Paul has shown, material blessings and bearing the cross does not go hand in hand.

Faith healers and prosperity teachers would say that if you do not experience material blessings and good health, it is because you are not right with God. On the contrary, I would say to them: if you do not suffer persecutions for the sake of the gospel, your lives are clearly not reflecting the teachings of the Word of God. For it is written:

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. – John 15:19

I do not believe evangelism is about inviting your friend or colleague to go to church. I do not call that evangelism. To me, that is a cop-out. I would term it as “invitationalism.” In the very end, it is the church that does the evangelizing, not you. I believe the biblical method of evangelism is found in Acts 8:26-40, where the Apostle Philip preached the gospel one-on-one to the eunuch, explaining in detail the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Not that the gospel being preached in churches is not evangelism or the gospel preached in crowd-filled stadiums is not evangelism. But to leave evangelism to the church and to church-designated missionaries while you enjoy your worldly possessions and look forward to a healthy long life is clearly not fulfilling your divinely ordained responsibility.

When we take up the cross and follow Jesus, the responsibility of evangelism comes along with the burden of the cross. And with evangelism, we will experience persecution. And with persecution, we may have to forsake our worldly possessions and our health.

In fact, I do not like the separation of an artificial distinct class of people called missionaries. The Word of God calls all of us to preach the gospel, and therefore every Christian are to be missionaries wherever we are, be it at work, at home or abroad. And that is not simply to unbelievers but to believers too.

Did the Apostle Paul preach the gospel in his epistle to the Christians in Rome? Yes he did. Did he preach the gospel to the Galatians to put to a halt the teachings of the false gospel? Yes he also did. I believe the gospel, the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ, has to be preached to unbelievers and believers alike. The gospel has to be preached, and at the same time, be defended from false teachings and unsound doctrines. This is supported by the Great Commission, which commands us to "make disciples of all nations... and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20)

In conclusion, God has never promised that earthly blessings and health would be automatically granted to us during our temporal lives. The gospel of Jesus Christ demands that we must take up the cross and follow Jesus. We must be willing to deny ourselves the pleasures and profits of this world. We must be willing to forgo the comforts of life and be subjected to poverty and distress. For it is written:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? – Matthew 16:24-26

The sum of the Christian life by John Calvin

2006-01-04T03:00:00.000+08:00

The sum of the Christian life is denial of ourselves. The ends of this self-denial are four.

That we may devote ourselves to God as a living sacrifice.

That we may not seek our own things, but those which belong to God and to our neighbour.

That we may patiently bear the cross, the fruits of which are—acknowledgment of our weakness, the trial of our patience, correction of faults, more earnest prayer, more cheerful meditation on eternal life.

That we may know in what manner we ought to use the present life and its aids, for necessity and delight. Necessity demands that we possess all things as though we possessed them not; that we bear poverty with mildness, and abundance with moderation; that we know how to endure patiently fulness, and hunger, and want; that we pay regard to our neighbour, because we must give account of our stewardship; and that all things correspond to our calling. The delight of praising the kindness of God ought to be with us a stronger argument.

- Book III, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin (1509-1564)

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.iii.html

On the false teachings of Joel Osteen

2006-01-01T10:21:00.000+08:00

The previous article Keep Christianity counterfeit-free has brought to my attention Joel Osteen, a man who was willing to compromise on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Since I have not heard of Joel Osteen, I have decided to look him up on the Internet. The first thing I did was to search for the interview transcript between him and Larry King.

Here is the direct link to the transcript of the interview conducted on June 20, 2005 that I have found. And here is a shocking excerpt from the interview:

KING: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?

OSTEEN: You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know ...

KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren't they?

OSTEEN: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God with judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

It is astonishing, but perhaps not totally unexpected, that besides misleading people with the false teachings of word-faith theology, Joel Osteen is willing to deny that salvation is only through Jesus Christ alone. This particular denial alone would fully qualify Joel Osteen as a heretic.

And by saying that unbelievers love God, Joel Osteen also deny the following Scriptural passage; that unbelievers are hostile to God and cannot please God.

The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. - Romans 8:6-9

The Wikipedia article describes Joel Osteen as the “the senior pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, North America’s largest and fastest growing church congregation, averaging approximately 30,000 adult attendees every week in 2005.”

According to the article, Joel Osteen is also “associated with the Word of faith movement in charismatic Protestantism.” During the interview with Larry King, he shows his support for this movement.

KING: What is the prosperity gospel?

OSTEEN: I think the prosperity gospel in general is -- well I don't know. I hear it too. I don't know. I think what sometimes you see is it's just all about money. That's not what I believe. It's the attitude of your heart, and so you know, we believe -- but I do believe this, that God wants us to be blessed. He wants us to be able to send our kids to college, excel in our careers. But prosperity to me, Larry, is not just money, it's having health. What good is money if you don't have health?

Besides denying Jesus Christ is the only way, the truth and the life (John 14:6), it appears that Joel Osteen is also not willing to preach on the doctrine of sin. While it is one thing to open the church to everybody (which I absolutely agree), it is quite another to minimize the gravity of sin.

OSTEEN: I have thoughts. I just, you know, I don't think that a same-sex marriage is the way God intended it to be. I don't think abortion is the best. I think there are other, you know, a better way to live your life. But I'm not going to condemn those people. I tell them all the time our church is open for everybody.

KING: You don't call them sinners?

OSTEEN: I don't.

KING: Is that a word you don't use?

OSTEEN: I don't use it. I never thought about it. But I probably don't. But most people already know what they're doing wrong. When I get them to church I want to tell them that you can change. There can be a difference in your life. So I don't go down the road of condemning.

I, for one, would not hesitate to renounce Joel Osteen as a false teacher. A man who holds the position of “Senior Pastor” surely would know better than to compromise the doctrine of Solus Christus and the doctrine of sin. Because of this, I can only conclude that Joel Osteen has every intention to deceive the Christian community by preaching a false Christ. Joel Osteen clearly stands out as an example of why biblical discernment is necessary to distinguish the wolves from the sheep, for it is written:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. – 2 Timothy 4:3

Update 25 June 2006! Bloggers on Joel Osteen:
Outing Joel Osteen: A Challenge to the Evangelical Blogosphere, Internet Monk
What's Wrong with Prospering? The Gospel according to Joel Osteen, Ben Witherington
The Limits of Encouragement, Albert Mohler

Article: Keep Christianity counterfeit-free

2005-12-31T23:49:00.000+08:00

(I thought this is quite an insightful article, which exhorts us to uphold fundamental Christian doctrines.

"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." - John 15:19)

By the Rev. Wally Morris
Charity Baptist Church
Posted on Sat, Dec. 31, 2005

I love the end of the year. It’s hard sometimes to point out any particular reason why. It’s more than food. It’s more than gifts. The last few weeks of the year seem special. The music, the decorations and family visits all play a part.

However, I suspect that many people have lost their understanding of this time of year. They still have the good feeling, but many don’t know why they have the good feeling.

Perhaps it’s because we’re living off the interest of the Christian foundations made generations ago. Not that long ago, people in churches knew their Bible, they knew their Christianity and they understood what Christianity meant. That developed a certain way of thinking in America.

For example, Thanksgiving is a distinctly American holiday. Very few countries have Thanksgiving. It is an American holiday because of the American emphasis on religion. Many secularists will immediately object to that conclusion, yet the historically strong emphasis on the Bible in American culture and its effect on every aspect of American life is irrefutable.

After decades of a de-emphasis of the Bible in America, however, we still have the good feeling, but we’re not quite sure why we have it. And so a lot of people like Thanksgiving and Christmas, but they’re not sure why. Part of the problem can be traced to a counterfeit Christianity.

Any form of “Christianity” which denies Christianity’s fundamental doctrines is not Christianity. Doctrines such as the Trinity (three “persons” but one God), the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (fully God and fully man), the full and complete inspiration of the 66 books of the Bible (and only those books), the Virgin Birth, the literal physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by Jesus Christ alone are a few of those fundamental doctrines.

Liberal theology, represented by the pseudo-scholarly Jesus Seminar (which was brought to Fort Wayne this year), is not Christian. J. Gresham Machen eloquently and thoroughly made this point in his book “Christianity and Liberalism” many years ago. Liberal theology is a theology of unbelief. Even a casual look at what the Jesus Seminar denies illustrates its unbelief. Liberal and Neo-orthodox theological systems are notorious for using Christian terminology with different meanings.

If a person wishes to deny fundamental Christian doctrine, that is his choice, but honesty requires that he use a word other than “Christian” to describe himself. He may have an attraction to Jesus Christ and may even believe some of what the Gospels tell us about Christ, but the Christ he follows is a Christ made in his own image rather than as the Bible portrays the Lord.

True Christianity is both doctrinally sound and practically relevant. James 1:21-27 refer to God’s Word as the “law of liberty” that frees from bondage to self only as a person is willing to see himself as the Bible pictures him. Yet true Christianity also has an “other person” focus as changed lives reach out in compassion to other people.

Liberal theology enthusiastically embraces social work and the words of Christ concerning the poor and disadvantaged, yet ignores the theological basis for any meaningful social change: the liberating gospel of the cross.

Some accuse conservative theology (fundamentalism) of neglecting society’s needs and only being concerned with the spiritual. However, many rescue missions, hospitals and charities were started by Bible-believing Christians who applied the Gospel to pressing social needs. Many evangelists were also involved in eliminating the scourge of alcohol and gambling from society. For example, in the early 1900s, when an evangelist came to town, the bars were forced to close for lack of business.

Today’s “Christianity” is an eclectic mix of Bible, psychology, motivational principles, American individualism and even some elements of Oriental mysticism.

Churches that change their format in order to be sensitive to “seekers” often have record numbers of people attend their churches, yet many churches that preach the “old rugged cross” struggle to pay their bills.

Churches that openly deny the Bible and dialogue with other beliefs are praised as “insightful” and “cutting-edge” while churches that warn about ecumenical compromise are considered “unloving” and “backward.” Pastors who smile a lot and claim they don’t know (such as Joel Osteen did this summer with Larry King) make millions of dollars on their books while other pastors who work faithfully every week to help people are considered bigoted for claiming to know the truth.

Such strange times we live in when people consider a counterfeit and superficial “Christianity” authentic, yet consider a Christianity which focuses on the cross, sin and doctrine to be a threat to society. May those churches which still preach the cross be encouraged to continue to fight the good fight of faith.

The Rev. Wally Morris is pastor of Charity Baptist Church in Huntington.

Source: Keep Christianity counterfeit-free, The Journal Gazette

Refutation of City Harvest's "Divine Healing" Article (Part 2)

2005-12-28T03:44:00.000+08:00

This is a continuation of an article that I wrote some time ago with regard to Harvest Times' Why Do We Believe In Divine Healing?

Kong Hee:
Four hundred years later, in His first advent, Jesus Himself took away any shadow of doubt concerning healing in the atonement. At Capernaum, after healing Peter's mother-in-law of fever, Jesus delivered those who were demon-possessed by His command. He then "healed all who were sick" (Matt. 8:16). The Scripture immediately reminds us that this is exactly what Isaiah the prophet says Jesus would come to do:

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: "He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses." (Matt. 8:17)

Response:
What exactly is the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ? It is simply this: the sacrificial offering Jesus Christ made on the cross of Calvary. In Romans 3:25, it is written:

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

Therefore, citing examples of miraculous healings BEFORE the occurence of the substitutionary atonement on the cross does not prove that physical healings are covered in the atonement.

Take for instance, it is as illogical as saying because Jesus performed the miracle of calming the storm in Luke 8:22-25, good and fair weathers are covered in the atonement. Or the miraculous feeding of the five thousand in Luke 9: 10-17 means that Christians will never go hungry.

With specific regard to Matthew 8:17, there is no mention of the cross where the substitutionary atonement took place. Instead, this verse is simply meant to show the readers that Jesus’ ministry of healing fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 53:4. Performing miraculous healings was never the main mission of Jesus Christ. His purpose on earth was to be the “atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (1 John 4:10)

Kong Hee:
Christians everywhere would agree that Jesus didn't go to the cross for some, but that He went for all of us.

Response:
The above statement shows a pretty poor understanding of the history of Christianity and of Christianity in general. The biblical doctrine of limited atonement is still being preached in many Calvinistic and Reformed churches.

The historical Canons of Dordt, which was written in 1618-19 in the Netherlands, rejects the doctrinal error of unlimited atonement by the followers of Jacobus Arminius,

For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10). Finally, this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the Church.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742) all state,

The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.

Kong Hee:
If "our" in verse 17 means all of us can have salvation in a Savior, then "our" must also mean all of us can have healing in a divine Healer. But why aren't all healed? The same reason why not all are saved. Just as salvation is not automatic but a gift you receive by faith, similarly healing is not automatic. You also have to receive it by faith! If you can't believe God for it, you won't get it. It is as simple as that.

Response:
This is a faulty comparison. The reference to healing at Matthew 8:17 does not have anything to do with the substitutionary atonement, and thus it has nothing to do with “salvation in a Savior” since it is the blood of Christ at the cross that saves us (Colossians 1:20).

Earlier on, Kong Hee declares physical healings to be in the atonement. In other words, physical healings are defined as one of the covenantal blessings of the New Covenant, along with blessings such as the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life.

And there lies the thorny question to be answered. If forgiveness of sins and eternal life are granted automatically upon salvation, why isn't physical healings accorded the same treatment as the rest of the covenantal blessings?

If healing is received by faith as Kong Hee claimed, shouldn't the Apostle Paul be telling Timothy about his “lack” of faith in 1 Timothy 5:23? The Apostle Paul wrote, “Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.”

He also wrote in Galatians 4:12-14,

I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong. As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you. Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.

The Apostle Paul was obviously afflicted with a physical illness. If faith is a requisite for healing, then perhaps Kong Hee is suggesting the apostle did not have enough faith to be healed.

Kong Hee:
Acts 10:38 says, "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." One fact stands out very clearly in this Scripture: sickness is an oppression of Satan the devil. You have to be very careful not to attribute a disease to God.

I have heard so many ignorant Christians making statements like "God has sent this sickness to teach me a lesson," or "This cancer is a gift from the Lord to bring you closer to Him." God doesn't do that. You must be clear that God heals while the devil afflicts. Healing is from the Lord while sicknesses are from Satan. Only then will you have the confidence and conviction to seek God's divine healing.

Response:
Does Kong Hee mean that God is not in sovereign control over sicknesses or Satan? Job 2:4-7,10 clearly shows that sickness is the result of God’s divine purpose. Job even associated his sickness with "trouble" from God.

"Skin for skin!" Satan replied. "A man will give all he has for his own life. But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face." The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head.
...
He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

God said to Moses in Exodus 4:11,

The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?

In 2 Corinthians 12:7, God has given the Apostle Paul “a thorn” in the flesh, “a messenger of Satan,” to keep him from becoming “conceited.”

And in Numbers 16:46-47, God started a plague among the Israelites.

Then Moses said to Aaron, "Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD ; the plague has started." So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them.

If sufferings or sicknesses are not governed by God, the following passage from Hebrews 12:5-11 would be meaningless.

And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."

Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!

Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Kong Hee:
The leper knew God has the power to heal, but he wasn't sure if God was willing to heal. Without hesitation, Jesus reveals the will of God in regards to sicknesses and diseases. He said, "Of course I am willing, be cleansed from your leprosy." The man was healed.

Response:
It is clearly shown in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 that it is not always the will of God to heal.

To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.

Kong Hee:
Faith is the atmosphere for miracles and healing. Doubt and unbelief are definite miracle killers. When Jesus came to His hometown of Nazareth, He was greatly despised by His own people. They scoffed at Him for being just the son of a simple carpenter (Mark 6:2-3). Jesus marveled at their unbelief and could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them (6:5-6).

When a Christian adopts an attitude that says, "Well, let God first heal me; then I'll believe in divine healing!" That is the surest way of hindering God's healing power. God's way is the way of faith—you believe first with conviction, then you will see the miracles of God taking place in your life.

Response:
There is no mention of faith in Matthew 8:14-15,

When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.

Neither is there any mention of faith in Acts 3:1-7,

One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer--at three in the afternoon. Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, "Look at us!" So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them. Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man's feet and ankles became strong.

C. H. Spurgeon on Calvinism (2)

2005-11-30T07:16:00.000+08:00

You may be an Arminian in summer, but you must be a Calvinist in the roaring winds of winter. Arminianism is a very pretty sort of theology for a painted boat upon a glassy lake, but they that do business on deep waters, and weather the storms and hurricanes, must have a good substantial bark of everlasting immutable love; otherwise, if the vessel be not staunchly and well built, their tacklings are loose, they cannot well strengthen their mast, and the vessel drives upon the quicksands. Beloved, in my spiritual building I want to get more and more on to the rock, immediately on the rock. I know I am told that the rock does not yield a harvest, that election is not a practical truth; but after all, if I want a house built, let me have it on the rock, for if it does not yield me any present practical results, yet I must have some comfort, I must have some place to dwell in the storm. I can go out to other fields to sow my corn and reap my harvest, but for my everlasting confidence I want a rock.

Rest assured that the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic are the only doctrines that can shut the mouths of devils, and fill the mouths of saints in the day of famine and in the time of extremity. “The Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee.” When I am bowed down under sin, next to my Bible I love such books as “Elisha Coles on Divine Sovereignty,” or “Dr. Crisp’s Sermons.” Albeit that they do not contain all the truth, yet they teach very clearly that part of it which a troubled spirit needs. Does eternal love ordain sinners to eternal life irrespective of their works? Does the Lord absolutely, out of sovereign mercy, make men to be his children? Did God choose the chief of sinners, and does he never cast them away? Does he say, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy?” Does he declare that he is absolutely justified in doing whatever he wills with his own? Does he on such terms as that choose me? Then blessed be his name, such an election as this just suits my case; and I find that believing the doctrine in that light, I can say to all my doubts and fears “Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee.”

- C. H. Spurgeon, Zechariah’s Vision of Joshua The High Priest, January 22, 1865

Reference:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0611.HTM

You may be a fundamentalist atheist if....

2005-11-28T19:26:00.000+08:00

(I have discovered this parody list at Tekton Apologetics Ministries. At last count, there were 276 points. Quite good for laughs.)

You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.
You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.
You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.
Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.
You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.
You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.
Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions.
You declare on a public forum that you are "furious at God for not existing."
You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.
You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.
You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
You insist that "the burden of proof is on he that alleges/accuses", and "it's impossible to prove a negative", then state "That's what Christians do. They lie. Their most common lie is that they were once atheists." When reminded about the burden of proof bit, you reply with, "Well, prove Christians don't lie!"
You adamantly believe that the "God of the gaps" idea is an essential tenet of orthodox Christian faith espoused by all the great Christian thinkers throughout history.
When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. God did not remove the disease and your friend died. You ask other Christians why they had to die when they were such a nice person and never harmed anyone. Dissatisfied with their answers, you suddenly decide that there is no God and that all Christians are nothing but lying, conniving con artists and hypocrites....all that is except for your friend who died.
You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".
You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing."
You attack your fellow atheists, who hold the "belief that there is no god", calling them "liars," and state that, "I do not deny the existence of any god. I just don't believe in any." Then you tell someone that their God is "made up." When someone calls you on this, you state, "I never made such a claim."
Going with the definition of "without a belief in God", you insist that all people are born atheists, and that dogs, cats, rocks, and trees are as well. You make statements like, "My dog is an atheist. Ask him about his lack of belief."
You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".
You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith.
While you don't believe in God, you feel justified on bashing God or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn't exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness!
You complain when Christians appeal to their emotions when justifying their belief in God yet you feel justified on appealing to your emotions for lack of belief in God.

Source:
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...., Tekton Apologetics Ministries

Alleged "Contradictions" in the Bible

2005-11-27T17:30:00.000+08:00

There is an Infidels.org article called Biblical Inconsistencies by Donald Morgan that poorly attempts to identify "contradictions" in the Bible. A quick Google search led me to Dave Woetzel who has helpfully written a couple of articles, which refute the points that are raised.

Infidels.org is a website whose purpose is to promote an atheistic worldview, and as we see from Donald Morgan's article, attacks Christianity.

If you are debating with critics of Christianity, the issue of Bible interpretations will invariably surface when they fail to attack the inerrancy of the Bible. "How do you know your interpretation is correct?" the critic would switch tactics and ask. Well, the article by Apologetics Index explained there are actually eight rules of intepretation that are not only used by Christians, but also "used by legal experts for more than 2500 years."

Eight Rules of Interpretation

Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.
Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?
Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.
Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.
Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.
Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.
Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.

Another tactic critics used is to bring up the various theological differences among Christian denominations. Joe Mizzi of Just for Catholics provides an explanation:

So, what is the cause of the differences among Christians? First of all, Christians are disciples (students); we are still learning and we have not yet arrived to a full and mature understanding of the Scriptures (see Ephesians 4:13). Therefore one expects to find differences among God's children. Secondly, Christians are not immune to error or the the deceptions introduced by false teachers. The apostle Paul had to correct the believers in Corinth, Galatia and Colosse for various errors. It is not any different today. Thirdly, and most importantly, the sin remaining in the Christian heart opposes the plain teaching of God's Word. Sometimes we find it hard to accept the teaching of the Bible because of practical implications we don't like or simply because it humiliates our natural pride. Many people did not receive the words of Jesus because of fear of the Jewish leaders and social isolation. Sometimes we do not receive the teaching of the Bible, not because we don't understand it, but because we are not willing to do so. There are differences because our beliefs and practices are not always consistent with our basic presupposition, namely, Sola Scriptura. We assert that the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith, and yet we sometimes misunderstand the Bible, or add, or take away, from the teaching of Scripture.

Here are some Christian apologetics websites that are dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and the Word of God from attacks.

Answering Islam
Answers in Genesis
Apologetics.org by the C.S. Lewis Society
Apologetics Index
Apologetics Press
ChristianAnswers.Net
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry by Matthew J. Slick
Creation Research Society
Creation Science Evangelism by Dr. Kent Hovind
Come Reason Ministries
Institute for Creation Research
Islamic Studies in Christian Perspective
Just for Catholics by Joe Mizzi
Tekton Apologetics Ministries

At the Third Beating the Women Wept

2005-11-22T23:47:00.000+08:00

(This is a true story of a Masai Warrior named Joseph. I have discovered this account through the book "Let the Nations be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions" by John Piper. This is an excerpt from the chapter "The Supremacy of God in Missions through Suffering.")

One day Joseph, who was walking along one of these hot, dirty African roads, met someone who shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with him. Then and there he accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior. The power of the Spirit began transforming his life; he was filled with such excitement and joy that the first thing he wanted to do was return to his own village and share that same Good News with the members of his local tribe.

Joseph began going from door-to-door, telling everyone he met about the Cross of Jesus and the salvation it offered, expecting to see their faces light up the way his had. To his amazement the villagers not only didn't care, they became violent. The men of the village seized him and held him to the ground while the women beat him with strands of barbed wire. He was dragged from the village and left to die alone in the bush.

Joseph somehow managed to crawl to a waterhole, and there, after days of passing in and out of consciousness, found the strength to get up. He wondered about the hostile reception he had received from people he had known all his life. He decided he must have left something out or told the story of Jesus incorrectly. After rehearsing the message he had first heard, he decided to go back and share his faith once more.

Joseph limped into the circle of huts and began to proclaim Jesus. "He died for you, so that you might find forgiveness and come to know the living God," he pleaded. Again he was grabbed by the men of the village and held while the women beat him, reopening wounds that had just begun to heal. Once more they dragged him unconscious from the village and left him to die.

To have survived the first beating was truly remarkable. To live through the second was a miracle. Again, days later, Joseph awoke in the wilderness, bruised, scarred---and determined to go back.

He returned to the small village and this time, they attacked him before he had a chance to open his mouth. As they flogged him for the third and probably the last time, he again spoke to them of Jesus Christ, the Lord. Before he passed out, the last thing he saw was that the women who were beating him began to weep.

This time he awoke in his own bed. The ones who had so severely beaten him were now trying to save his life and nurse him back to health. The entire village had come to Christ.

Original source:
Michael Card, "Wounded in the House of Friends," Virtue (March/April 1991): 28-29, 69

On Pat Robertson, disasters and Christian theme parks

2005-11-15T13:47:00.000+08:00

There was a recent report (10 Nov 2005) by the Christian Science Monitor that several Christian organizations are partnering with the Israeli ministry of tourism to build the Holy Land Christian Center, a Christian theme park and visitors' center that promotes the places where Jesus Christ walked.

According to the report, "one of the key figures at the heart of the project would be Pat Robertson, the prominent televangelist and founder of The 700 Club."

Now, I have nothing against any Christian visiting historical sites of the Bible. However there is this one particular paragraph that sets off alarm bells ringing in my head.

And bowing to protests from Orthodox Jewish groups, the Christian partners will have to agree not to go out and proselytize to local Jewish Israelis.

As any true Christian would know, the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ is of utmost importance. What use is the theme park if the unsaved Jews do not hear the gospel? Is the theme park so essential that it must be built at the expense of the gospel?

I have also noticed another report (10 Nov 2005) by Reuters on Pat Robertson. Here is a short quote:

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

Pat Robertson is basically "prophesising" that any disaster that befalls the city would be the result of the citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania choosing the theory of evolution over intelligent design.

False prophet anyone?

Unless Pat Robertson actually receive a direct revelation from God, this statement from him is most ridiculous. So hey Pat, here is a newsflash: you do not reject God by believing in evolution. You reject God because you are born a sinner. You reject God by rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Pat Robertson is trying to add works, that is support for intelligent design, to the gospel. According to Pat, if we do not support intelligent design, "don't ask for His help because (God) might not be there." You can interpret his statement this way: if God is not with us, it means that God has rejected us. If God has rejected us, it means that we are not saved.

In fact, the gospel Pat Robertson preached in his recent statement is similar to the false gospel found in the epistle to the Galatians. Like some of the Galatians who thought that circumcision is needed for salvation, Pat is saying a vote for intelligent design is needed for our salvation.

A word of advice to the non-Christians: please do not listen to Pat Robertson. He does not represent us Bible-believing Christians. His previous call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is in direct opposition of the Word of God. We are called to preach the gospel, not to murder politicians, give false prophecies or build theme parks. It is people like him who gives Christianity a bad name.

Every church does a liturgy

2005-11-07T20:00:00.000+08:00

(I have discovered an interesting post by The Presbyteer through this blog. The typical non-liturgical church does indeed look quite shallow in comparison.)

Every church does a liturgy. The only question is, what kind will you do?

Dis church:	Dat church:
Minister: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit	Minister: Good morning.
People: Amen	People: (mumble)
Minister: I was glad when they said unto me, We will go into the house of the LORD.	Minister: (smiling) Oh, let's try that again. I said, "Good Morning!"
	People: Good morning.
Minister: Let us humbly confess our sins unto Almighty God.	Minister: That's better. Well, God has given us such a beautiful day, (or: It's great to see so many of you here in spite of the (cold, heat, rain, snow)) ... and we just want to worship him together. So just forget about that Husker game for a while and let's just worship the Lord together. Charlie, what do you have for us this morning?
People: ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou those, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou those who are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind In Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.
Minister: ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live, hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins. He pardoneth and absolveth all those who truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.	Charlie: Well this is a new chorus the Lord gave me while I was (name of activity). Just listen the first time through. I just hope Paul doesn't screw up the PowerPoint slides...
	People: (laughter)
	Charlie: Listen to the words ... You just make me feel so wonderful You just make me feel so wonderful You just make me feel so wonderful Wonderful You're Awesome. Oh yeah ...

At the Reformation Day Conference 2005

2005-11-04T14:49:00.000+08:00

I was attending the Reformation Day Conference 2005 yesterday. Being a first-timer to the event organized by the Evangelical Reformed Churches of Singapore, I was curious to see what it is all about.

The Tulip Reformed Book Centre has also set up tables selling a couple of Christian books.

Books that I have bought:

Christ's spiritual kingdom: A defense of Reformed amillennialism by David Engelsma
The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism by Gregg Strawbridge (Editor)

I have also took a couple of free booklets:

Psalm Singing: A Reformed Heritage by Rev. Jason L. Kortering
Without Christ by J C Ryle
The Cross: The Vindication of God by D. M. Lloyd-Jones

The Sale of Indulgences in the Medieval Church

2005-11-02T14:20:00.000+08:00

A scandal of the medieval (Roman Catholic) church was the selling of indulgences. Clergymen and bankers' agents collect money in return for absolving the purchaser of his sins. The banner is a symbol of the pope's authorization.¹

Listen to the voices of your dear dead relatives and friends, beseeching you and saying, "Pity us, pity us. We are in dire torment from which you can redeem us for a pittance." Do you not wish to? Open your ears. Hear the father saying to his son, the mother to her daughter, "We bore you, nourished you, brought you up, left you our fortunes, and you are so cruel and hard that now you are not willing for so little to set us free. Will you let us lie here in flames? Will you delay our promised glory?" Remember that you are able to release them, for "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings,/ The soul from purgatory springs."

- Johann Tetzel, famous indulgence salesman

Source:
1. A Lion Handbook: the History of Christianity, p.366